The horrible “unintentional” murder of seven aid workers in Gaza carries many lessons. One is the importance of signaling the moral principles that are expected to be followed. One week after the barbaric attack against Israeli civilians, I wrote:
The basic individualist ethic nurtured by Western civilization rejects group identities and tribal intuitions that justify collective punishments. In times of war, individualist ethics may be difficult to uphold by those waging a just defensive war, but its recognition is essential as a standard to distinguish collectivist barbarians and civilized individualists. Just as it makes no sense to hold the Israelis responsible for the barbaric attack of which they were victims, it is nonsensical to think of ordinary Gazans, under the yoke of Hamas thuggery, as collectively guilty and artisans of their own misfortune.
Two months later, after three Israeli hostages were killed by the army supposed to liberate them, I wrote, more explicitly (my apologies for quoting myself again):
A man has got to do what a man has got to do, within certain moral constraints. After October 7, the Israeli government should have proclaimed the principle as loud as the calls for revenge were heard, and should have endeavored to lead by example.
It would not have been too late for the Israeli government to state clearly, and to start repeating, that they were not after a collective punishment irrespective of guilt, and that they intended to respect the laws of war, Western individualist ethics, and simple human decency towards civilians. It was probably still time for the Israeli government to keep the moral support of decent people in the international community and to transmit to its armed forces a strong message of moral restraint. Thousands of civilian lives in Gaza would have been saved. The probability of “unintentionally” killing aid workers would have been reduced. The Israelis would not have wasted so much of their capital of sympathy. Moral principles are a good strategy.
There is also a lesson regarding the circulation of information if the Financial Times is correct:
The fatal strikes followed a series of mistaken assumptions that could have been prevented had the military properly passed along the details of the humanitarian convoy to the commanders who ultimately ordered the strikes. World Central Kitchen had shared those details with the proper military authorities, but they were lost somewhere in the chain of communication, the investigation found.
Students of bureaucracy know that there is much noise in the internal communications of any large organization. The military is a large bureaucracy, a point on which Gordon Tullock insisted. Anthony Downs, one of the early public choice economists, noted in his 1967 book Inside Bureaucracy:
When information must be passed through many officials, each of whom condenses it somewhat before passing it on to the next, the final output will be very different in quality from the original input; that is, significant distortion will occur.
In a bureau hierarchy, information passed upward to the topmost officials tends to be distorted so as to most reflect what he would like to hear, or his preconceived views, than reality warrants.
Soldiers and officers on the ground don’t receive the exact same orders as were issued at the top of the pyramid. Signaling moral principles could have clarified communications about the required moral restraint.
The Israeli military apologized to the World Central Kitchen, to which the killed aid workers belonged, and said it had “dismissed two officers and reprimanded three,” according to the Financial Times. This does not seem sufficient to compensate for the multiple faults committed by the Israeli government during this war. Of course, we are still waiting for the remaining leaders of Hamas to condemn those who have participated in or organized the butchery of October 7. Their refusal to do so as well as their use of their population as innocent shields should not make us forget that, as the American Secretary of State correctly said, the state of Israel should follow “higher standards.”
All this assumes that the Israeli government does want to abide by higher standards. The Economist writes (“What Israel’s Killing of Aid Workers Means for Gaza,” April 3, 2024):
Isaac Herzog, the Israeli president, called Mr Andrés [the founder of the World Central Kitchen] and expressed “deep sorrow”. The army chief pledged a thorough investigation (though Israel has a poor track record of those). Israel’s prime minister was less contrite: in a bizarre videotaped statement, a smiling Mr Netanyahu said that he was recovering well from hernia surgery and then acknowledged the “tragic event” in Gaza. “This happens in war,” he said. …
For months Mr Netanyahu has refused to order the Israeli army to distribute aid in Gaza itself.
******************************
The featured image of my post is a courtesy of DALL-E, laboring under my instructions. As ze said zirself, “the images depict Ker, the goddess of death in Greek mythology, walking through the remnants of a city devastated by aerial bombing…”
Ker, the Greek goddess of death, at work in Gaza
READER COMMENTS
Craig
Apr 10 2024 at 8:42am
“The fatal strikes followed a series of mistaken assumptions that could have been prevented had the military properly passed along the details of the humanitarian convoy to the commanders who ultimately ordered the strikes. World Central Kitchen had shared those details with the proper military authorities, but they were lost somewhere in the chain of communication, the investigation found.”
Even if the information wasn’t shared, what was it about this target that made it appear to be a valid military target?
Peter
Apr 10 2024 at 2:09pm
It was in Gaza and couldn’t shoot back. We don’t need to over analyze this. It flows from the US GWOT and domestic LEO definitions of “anybody in the theater of operations that isn’t me is presumed to be a valid enemy combatant”. The only thing that stops abusing that definition is a organizational culture against it which face it, doesn’t seem to exist in the IDF.
That isn’t a snark either. In conflict force protection is in direct opposition to collateral damage and societies, organizations, etc have to figure out which one they prioritize and what is the veneer of that margin. Unfortunately the West has become a society of cowards to it’s very core since the Cold War ended hence the veneer is safety at all cost which leads to unfortunate events like this.
Anonymous
Apr 11 2024 at 3:57pm
According to the Israeli report drone operators thought they saw weapons- now they think they were bags slung over shoulders.
Jon Murphy
Apr 10 2024 at 9:20am
At the risk of sounding like I am going on a tanget, this is precisely why I satuchly oppose treating and characterizing immigration at the US Southern border as an “invasion” or referring to a subset of the immigrants as “military-aged men.” The military absolutely should not be used for immigration because of the risks of miscommunication and a potental humanitarian crisis like what happened in Israel. An individualistic and humanitarian approach must be taken: treat people as innocent until proven guilty, lest the military kill civilians.
Craig
Apr 10 2024 at 9:36am
Illegally crossing, in and of itself, is malum prohibitum. It is not something that should ordinarily carry the death sentence. Whether or not it constitutes a military threat is a political question though. If its 1943 and 3% of all illegal crossings are people sympathetic with the Axis, that’s up to Congress if they want to militarize the border, Congress does have that authority. Government can treat people crossing as if breaking law based on reasonable suspicion/probable cause/articulable facts that the person is illegally crossing.
Pierre Lemieux
Apr 10 2024 at 10:38am
Craig: I believe two related points should be emphasized, which somewhat reduce the scope of your comment. First, you write:
Except if one believes, like our friends on the left and on the right, that “everything is political,” matters of fact are not political matters. Whether unicorns exist or not is not a political matter. One could argue that politicians and bureaucrats can make any matter political, if only by discussing it but, in a classical liberal perspective, they must be so limited in what they can do that discussing some matters should be of no interest to them.
Second comment of yours which, I suggest, calls for some perspective:
As many analysts in the non-authoritarian tradition, I am not discussing which authority Congress or the Congolese National Assembly has, but which authority it should have or not. The positive question is no doubt important, but that’s not my focus–and it should not be an exclusive focus.
Pierre Lemieux
Apr 10 2024 at 10:54am
Craig: Let me rapidly review what can be an objection to what I just said. It could be argued that in a liberal-contractarian perspective à la Buchanan, everything is political because any general rule of life in society can be discussed and even subject to bargaining. The counter-objection is that this is not the realm of politics, because unanimity is not politics. When you and I exchange apples and oranges, this is not politics. The realm of politics is what is imposed and non-unanimous. On this, see Buchanan’s The Limits of Liberty. (I am not absolutely sure the distinction is totally water-proof, but it does throw out some tyrannical bath water.)
Jon Murphy
Apr 10 2024 at 1:15pm
I’m not sure it’s a political question. It seems to me to be a cut-and-dry national security question (and the answer is “no”).
I do not deny Congress that authority. But that is irrelevant. My point is not whether Congress has the authority to militarize the border. My point is treating immigration as an invasion is unwise and could lead to a humanitarian crisis.
Congress does have the authority to militarize the border and use the miltary to prevent immigration. That does not make such a policy wise or desirable. Likewise, Congress has the authority to impose protective tariffs. That does not make protective tariffs a wise policy. Israel has the authority to defend itself. That does not make droning a convoy of aid workers wise.
David Seltzer
Apr 10 2024 at 2:09pm
Pierre: The trade-off between innocent casualties and moral restraint is terrible. I lived in Israel and the constant subliminal hum of being prepared for attacks like October 7 is exhausting. Bibi understands “From the river to the sea” means expulsion for all Jews. He was an elite commando who fought in the 1973 war. The lesson learned from the Yom Kippur attack was: Israel can never be complacent or ill prepared again. On October 7th, Netanyahu was reminded of that lesson. With the most recent bellicose threats from Iran, I suspect, he’ll show as much moral restraint as possible, but he will do what is necessary to insure Israel’s survival!
Pierre Lemieux
Apr 10 2024 at 3:33pm
David: There is no way the state of Israël and hundreds of thousands if not millions of its inhabitants can survive if nearly everybody in the world is against it. If there is a case where high moral standards are a good strategy, this is it.
David Seltzer
Apr 10 2024 at 4:17pm
Pierre: Good to hear from you. It seems that strategy has failed with Hamas, The PLO, and Hezbollah. I fear Iran. If Bibi finds himself in a Thucydides Trap I suspect he will use everything in his arsenal. What are his options? Diaspora? Capitulate and become subjects? Negotiate a two state solution when Hamas wants one Palestinian state. At the 2000 Camp David summit, Arafat angered Bill Clinton. Yasar wanted all of Gaza, The West Bank, Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. He refused to budge from those demands.. The negotiations were based on an all-or-nothing approach, such that “nothing was considered agreed and binding until everything was agreed.” What would de Jasay and Buchanan say?
steve
Apr 10 2024 at 4:36pm
“Israel can never be complacent or ill prepared again. On October 7th, Netanyahu was reminded of that lesson. ”
But he prioritized settlements in the West Bank and pulled the troops normally monitoring Gaza for that effort. It took hours for Israeli troops to respond on what was essentially the 50th anniversary of Yom Kippur. Hamas is a religious based group of terrorists intent on killing Jews, but they basically have small arms and some low grade missiles. No armor, artillery or air force. It took extreme negligence to allow Hamas to attack in the force that it did. They were riding around with 2 or 3 people on motorcycles. Based on his actions, not his words, Netanyahu only has regard for his political career and not his country.
Steve
David Seltzer
Apr 10 2024 at 5:10pm
Fair point Steve. There wasn’t a major attack in 10 years and complacency took root. To say Bibi’s only concern was his political career and not his country is patently wrong. Certainly he’s as self interested as any politician, but that also means his job is to defend Israel as part of his self-interest. Concern for his country meant risking his life several campaigns and was wounded in battle multiple times ! Is this a person who has no concern for his country. Live there and you might understand!
Jose Pablo
Apr 10 2024 at 6:02pm
It took extreme negligence to allow Hamas to attack in the force that it did
Well, it seems that “extreme negligence” is the norm when trying to defend us against terrorist attacks.
Like 9/11 in New York, like 2004 in Madrid, London 2005, Paris 11/25, North Ireland, Basque Country, Moscow March 2024 …
It seems that it is “extreme brilliance” (and, more than any other thing, luck) that protects us from more terrorist attacks, not the other way around.
Radicals willing to die are very difficult to stop. Particularly so while maintaining a functional liberal democracy deserving that name. It is much more sensible not to “create” those “radicals” in the first place.
Jose Pablo
Apr 10 2024 at 2:22pm
Maybe it is time to revisit some widespread views:
That such a thing as a “just war” can exist. It cannot. Not even the American invasion of Iraq or Israel’s war against Hamas. There is no such thing as a “just war”. All wars are just horrible. Much worse than the alternative.
That armies are here to “protect us”. No, they are not. The Israeli army didn’t protect Israelis on October 7th, the American army didn’t protect Americans on 9/11, and the German army didn’t protect Germans in 1939-45.
Wars make us worse off, materially and above all morally. They appeal to the worst of us humans. Wars cannot be waged without armies. Armies cannot exist without governments. Ergo …
Nuclear war is the worst threat to humankind. Only governments manage nuclear weapons. Ergo …
It is time to revisit Gandhi and Mandela.
David Seltzer
Apr 10 2024 at 2:36pm
Jose wrote, “It is time to revisit Gandhi and Mandela.” Three points. Yes! They were voices in the wilderness. Finally. They were individuals. Not government officials.
Pierre Lemieux
Apr 10 2024 at 3:27pm
Jose: You wrote that a “just war” cannot exist. I don’t think that is correct. Or if it is, it means that there is no individual liberty possible. Rejecting self-defense implies, in practice, accepting tyranny. The beautiful verse of Lucan “ignorant datos, ne quisquam serviat, senses” (“they don’t know that swords were given in order that no one become a slave”) is not only a plea for suicide instead of slavery, but should serve as a justification of self-defense. If you don’t believe Lucan, just look at the fourth millennium: https://www.econlib.org/from-the-fourth-millennium-a-tale-for-libertarians/!
Jose Pablo
Apr 10 2024 at 5:53pm
Pierre, I see your argument. And yet. Are armies really the right tool for “self-defense” against tyranny?
If they are, they “backfire” most of the time. They are way more often the tool for imposing tyranny. Look at Latin America, Portugal, Spain, Germany, Italy, Russia, Japan, North Korea, Venezuela. The list goes on.
Armies seem to be more often than not, the tool for tyranny. Curiously enough more often for tyranny against their own people than against any neighbour. Tyrants are, most of the time, among us. They don’t come from abroad riding war horses.
I am afraid your argument doesn’t stand against reality. “Ideal constitutional armies” defending liberal democracies with the individual at their center against foreign tyrants are just, I am afraid, a “romantic construction”.
In reality armies and wars ARE tyranny. They are necessary for tyranny. Historically, their role in expanding tyranny is way (but way, way) more significant than their role in defending the individual against it.
Jim Glass
Apr 11 2024 at 12:42am
Are armies really the right tool for “self-defense” against tyranny? If they are, they “backfire” most of the time….
OK, so Temujin, Tojo, Adolf, Josef, is coming with an army to “tyrannize” you and yours, fully “to death” very literally very likely (see their CVs). You have a good army of your own you can use for “self defense”. Oh, but that might “backfire”.
Your superior alternative is … ?????
Jose Pablo
Apr 11 2024 at 7:58am
You are making the terrible mistake of thinking that your ex-post conclusions can be safely used ex-ante.
Wasn’t supposed to be the goal of the German army to protect Germans against tyranny?
Wasn’t that the goal of the French army controlled by Vichy?
Was the Russian army under Stalin an exception to the “norm” of armies protecting individuals?
Is the PEOPLE LIBERATION army devoted to “protecting people against tyranny”?
Was the Argentinian army throwing people in the open seas protecting people against tyranny?
Even the American army. One of its first acts of “protecting liberty” was the Newburgh Conspiracy that set the American legitimate government on the run.
Ex-ante your odds are that this “army protecting you” is the one that is going to “Bucha you”.
You don’t go to the military to get a lesson on individualism and liberty. Armies are the wet dream of tyrants (have been since ancient times) and of single-minded nationalists, dreaming of imposing collective views.
More often than not that’s what individuals get from them.
The alternative is what Mandela, Gandhi, or Martin Luther King taught us.
Armies, the way you see them, are what is going to get all of us killed. We are a bad day away from that. And with bloodthirsty nationalists controlling the nuclear weapons, the question is not if this is going to happen is only when it is going to happen.
And it is going to be bad. Much worse than the worst Bucha or October 7th
Anonymous
Apr 11 2024 at 4:02pm
Quite the opposite, Jose. Not having an army would be a guarantee that the worst and most brutal would rule.
Jose Pablo
Apr 12 2024 at 1:21am
Why do you think so, anonymous?
Your “belief” seems to follow a very particular “narrative”: “A foreign tyrant is commanding an army and trying to invade and subjugate the good guys. The good guys have another army to defend themselves that allows them to avoid subjugation“, that is, indeed, an appealing narrative. Unfortunately, this seldom happens in real life. Maybe the American army defending Europe against the Nazis came close to that. Or the Greeks fighting the Persians (although Sparta, which was a tyranny itself was a not-so-good guy part of the “good guys coalition”).
But there are other narratives involving armies that are much more prevalent.
“A domestic tyrant uses the domestic army to subjugate their own people”, the real-life examples of this narrative are aplenty: Portugal 1974, Spain 1936, Argentina 1966 and 1976, Chile 1973, Venezuela 2002, China 1989, Russia nowadays … to name but a few
“The good guys’ army indiscriminately kills innocent people that didn’t pose a real threat of subjugation“, for instance, the American army killing the native Americans, or the IDF killing Gazans
“The good guys’ army is the one invading other countries whose citizens would be better off under the rule of the invading army“, for instance, the Napoleonic wars in Europe against the Ancien Regime (definitely a worse way of deciding on collective issues) or the Americans invading Irak and Afghanistan, or the Romans invading the barbarian territories
“The good guys and the bad guys are pretty much indiscernible“, basically all the wars among the great European nations between the XV and the XVIII centuries.
And some more.
So I am really curious about why you chose the less relevant of all narratives as a “definition” of the “authentic” role of armies. Even though, most of the time, armies are used for exactly the opposite purpose of the one you mention.
Pierre Lemieux
Apr 12 2024 at 4:46pm
Jose: As you say, we must recognize the incentive of a potential tyrant (individual or collective) to use an army (especially a professional one); thus the danger of a standing army. (Trump was speaking of “my generals”!) But we also have to recognize the incentive of a potential tyrant (individual or collective) to attack and loot undefended countries; his incentive is more powerful as the target is rich and serves as a “bad” example or an exit option for his subjects. In my view, no social-political theory can be useful if it ignores either one of these incentives.
Jose Pablo
Apr 12 2024 at 8:45pm
I fully agree with your way of summarizing the argument.
Building upon this framing:
* standing armies have been historically used and continue to be used, as a way for domestic tyrants to grab power or stay in power. That’s an indisputable fact.
* standing armies very rarely have been used to successfully resist foreign tyrants. This narrative seems to be mostly a kind of “Hitler syndrome”*
* It is also true that “what is not seen” in this case is “tyrant invasions that have not been made” because the democratically ruled target had a standing army.
* But it is also true, paraphrasing Reagan, that we are always one generation away from a tyrant controlling the American army. A truly scary thought and a risk worth considering.
Taking this into account, the case (thanks for your framing) that the risks of having standing armies outweigh the benefits, can certainly be made and positively discussed.
And it is difficult to defend that an effective banning of all standing armies from the face of Earth would not have very positive effects (and even this is a huge understatement). AFAIK, very little intellectual effort has been devoted in the realm of socio-political theory to analyze the possibilities of effectively achieving this very interesting goal. To say that our actual state regarding wars “is human nature” seems like accepting defeat without a good fight (no pun intended).
Generals are not angels (even less so than politicians) and they do have their own set of incentives and, frequently, a very strong set of personal (conservative) beliefs. This leads, with a meaningful frequency, to the outstripping of their limited constitutional mandate of protecting citizens against foreign invasions.
A kind of Public Choice Theory for armies/generals could yield interesting (and surprising) insights.
* And there are a lot of nuances in this case. All European armies but the RAF, were useless to that end. And a significant part of the demise of the uber-tyrant was caused by the army of another uber-tyrant.
Jim Glass
Apr 11 2024 at 12:13am
OK. We agree so far.
Well, that’s your opinion at the moment. If the day comes when an enemy army is approaching your town to Bucha you — kill you and your family, after raping the women — you’ll get the chance to back it up by telling your own army: “Guys, don’t bother fighting to save me and my family, that will only make the world a worse place. “ Just like if you were enjoying life in Haiti today, with “entire families burned alive in their homes”, you could say you are happy to not have the oppressive guns of the state “protecting” your own family and home from such hooliganism. But these hypotheticals will never be.
So maybe you should ask other people who have actually suffered such situations what their real opinions are: To the populations of Western Europe: “Aren’t you much worse off for suffering the horrors if the Normandy invasion, when instead you could have had peace and lived under victorious Nazis for all these decades?” … And ask the South Koreans: “Don’t you truly regret fighting that war, when for the last 70 years you could have enjoyed the peaceful rule of the Kim family?. Aren’t you really much worse off living in a rich modern democracy instead?” Just don’t ask any of them who like to use a light bulb at night, they’ll be biased.
But now you jump the shark. Genghis Khan killed 10% of the world population, 40 million people. You know what his Mongols didn’t have when they came roaring off the steppes? A state or a government.
Death by violence rates were HUGELY HIGHER in pre-state societies than in state societies. See those charts, I’ve posted them before, pay attention this time. You are entitled to your opinions and your fantasies, but not to write your own counter-reality history of the human race. Deal with it.
“Temujin, Adolf, Josef, I’d like you to meet Nelson and Mah … Hey, you two are dead! What happened??”
Jose Pablo
Apr 11 2024 at 11:35am
The American army was “advancing the cause of freedom” in May Lai?
Was it defending people against oppression in Wounded Knee?
Was it “setting people free” in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? (well, maybe it was in a “poetic sense”)
And I am the one “writing my own counter-reality history”, that’s funny!
And sure, what the IDF is doing in Gaza is solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict once and for all. One dead Palestinian at a time. Genghis Khan style. A style that works so well according to notorious sticking-to-facts historians.
It is remarkable how well this ancient Genghis Khan approach is aging! Still a reference we should adapt our institutions too.
Maybe we should shape our institutions to also prevent cannibalism (we used to do that too), slavery (practiced in the States until a few years ago) or human ritual sacrifices (humankind was pretty fond of them too).
Pierre Lemieux
Apr 11 2024 at 1:56pm
Jim: Two points. First, I suppose your “you” is rhetorical and does not refer to Jose personally.
Second, although I partly agree with you and partly with Jose, I think some perspective is needed (on both sides). You write:
I think that Genghis Khan himself died before the Mongols’ attempts to conquer Europe in the 13th century. Be that as it may, one reason why the Mongols were not able to conquer Europe was that Europe did not have a state. (Another one is the thousands of spare horses they were bringing and who needed steppe food.) Around year 1000, power was so fragmented in Europe that French sociologist and historian Jean Baechler could write that “the expansion of capitalism owes its origins and its raison d’être to political anarchy” (his emphasis). The 13th-century Mongol hordes attacking Europe were notably stopped by the “intense armed fragmentation” of Western Europe where stoned castles and fortified cities had to be conquered one at a time and “there was no central government to offer surrender” (my emphasis, quoting Walter Schiedel’s Escape from Rome—see “Let’s Travel That Road Again,” Summer 2020).
On another issue, you write:
As I previously mentioned to one of my favorite contradictors, this is compensated (partly?) by the murders of the states themselves. During the 20th century, states killed about 175,000,000 of their own citizens, excluding interstate wars (see Rudolph Rummel’s work and his not-so-well-maintained site at the University of Hawaii).
steve
Apr 10 2024 at 4:47pm
Accidents really do happen in war, especially urban warfare. However, the context matters a lot. The World Kitchen People were killed in a deconflicted zone, the kind of zone set up specifically to avoid these kinds of accidents. It happened at about 1:00 AM. The chances that Hamas would form a convoy and be the only vehicles on the street at that time of night is about zero. Suggests a level of incompetency that is hard to believe or that the soldiers feel it’s pretty safe to not have to worry about accidentally shooting the wrong people.
In the broader context, Israel has opposed providing food, fuel and medical aid to Gaza. They made some iffy claims about UNWRA so that group stopped sending aid. Andres group stepped up to pick up the slack and on their second delivery they get killed. Probably an accident but it sure looks like someone knew there wouldn’t be any real punishment if the accidentally killed aid workers.
Jose Pablo
Apr 10 2024 at 6:14pm
Accidents really do happen in war
To the point that the actual “accident” is the killing of the military of the other army.
Wars, real ones, not theoretical ones fought from coughs, are mostly about killing, displacing, and terrorizing civilians.
In WWII the number of civilian casualties was more than two times bigger than the number of military casualties. In Hiroshima (a well-known military target) the ratio was way more higher.
I will review the meaning of “accident”. Using it from “things you know for sure that are going to happen” seems like a misuse to me.
Fazal Majid
Apr 10 2024 at 6:05pm
There is a parallel to be made between the failure of the IDF to circulate information on WCK’s approved plans, and its even more egregious failure to handle multiple reports from junior intelligence analysts about Hamas’ preparations for the attack, when almost all the Hamas plans were known up to a year in advance and they were conducting drills in the open.
David Seltzer
Apr 10 2024 at 6:22pm
Fazal, alas, I concur.
Mactoul
Apr 10 2024 at 11:04pm
Liberalism has never been established anywhere without a great deal of bloodshed.
This war against Hamas, if lost, would be a great victory for Jehad, not only in Middle East but also in the West. You will feel the consequences in your own neighborhood shortly enough.
It would be a great setback to newly liberalizing Saudi Arabia and to liberal youth of Iran and elsewhere in the Muslim world.
These people, one may be reasonably sure, are not quibbling about accidents that are unavoidable in war.
Why are these aid workers in the middle of war. It has been put that it is these precisely these kind of aid workers that has prolonged this particular conflict.
Jose Pablo
Apr 11 2024 at 9:06am
Why are these aid workers in the middle of war. It has been put that it is these precisely these kind of aid workers that has prolonged this particular conflict.
This “particular conflict” has been going on since 1948. Please, revisit, your understanding of the verb “to prolong” as soon as you can.
But, sure it is aid workers who have prolonged this conflict for 75 years mostly by avoiding the Palestinian genocide (those bastards!). The ones that sure have gotten it right are the hard-headed, simple-minded nationalists insisting on a military solution that has solved nothing for the last 75 years but sure is going to do it now.
I am sure that the sons and grandsons of the Palestinians killed in this conflict are going to abandon terrorism and dedicate their lives to cultivating tulips in the desert and praising the intellectual superiority of Western people. I am 100% sure.
Sometimes you can only feel aw in front of some people’s ability to insist on their mistakes.
Anonymous
Apr 11 2024 at 4:06pm
Israel followed different tactics in the West Bank (security control) and Gaza (withdrawal). Gaza failed, so they most likely will follow the West Bank strategy, which worked.
Mactoul
Apr 11 2024 at 9:55pm
Where are 15 million refugees from the partition of India in 1947?
15 million of German refugees from the lost territories?
Where are the Jews that lived in Iraq, Yemen, Egypt?
All of them were integrated into normal society and were no longer labelled refugees. Some of them are even growing flowers.
But the Palestinians have been kept as permanent wards of UN. A unique status not granted to any other community and this has been a big factor in the festering problem.
Jim Glass
Apr 11 2024 at 12:26am
Nobody mentions Stalin’s: “One dead is a tragedy, a million dead is a statistic”?
Isn’t that the real root of a whole lot of the political angst being vented?
Joe was talking about starving the Ukrainians, not military campaigns, but same point.
Pierre Lemieux
Apr 11 2024 at 1:00pm
Jim: Assuming I understand what you see as the implication of your first sentence, I still don’t understand the following two. Can you elaborate?
BS
Apr 15 2024 at 2:10pm
What I see is that some here are working a fly-s*#*-in-pepper debate, obsessing over mistakes and different proportionality calculations and forgetting that the real root of conflict and massive human misery is when aggressors see, or think they see, weakness. A standing army big enough to deter aggression is a lot cheaper than fighting a war because deterrence failed. Most countries in “the west” have figured out how to have standing armies that don’t overthrow governments and oppress people, and a standing army is a prerequisite for mobilizing a useful citizen army, which takes time. Most of those countries also do a good job of inculcating statutory and customary international law, and the values behind it. Occasional failures aren’t proof of systemic flaws.
There are some principles for measuring “just war”. Almost any war can be found to be unjust (on the part of the aggressor). Evaluating whether a particular war was just is a common topic available to students at the various war colleges when they are required to write papers.
Something that will have to be explained by the lesson-seekers is why Jews around the world who are probably not Israelis are unsafe if the issue here is Israel.
Anonymous
Apr 11 2024 at 4:08pm
No doubt there has been a lot of civilian suffering in Gaza, but the number of civilians killed is astonishingly low. It’s clear Israel has been trying very hard and very successfully to avoid civilian casualties, for which I commend them.
Jose Pablo
Apr 12 2024 at 11:04am
We have no clue about the number of people killed in Gaza.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/hamass-numbers-games-civilian-death-counts-casualty-data-b99140eb
In war, truth is the first casualty. This is not surprising since war is politics by other means, and politics and truth …