Oct 30, 2023·edited Oct 30, 2023Liked by Kiran Pfitzner
Good article, will share this with a few friends.
The fact that Hamas deliberately places its military facilities near concentrations of civilians needs to be propagated more. Too many still see Hamas as a kind of resistance group that fights for the people of Gaza and Palestine, when in fact they provoke their death for political capital.
From both an ethical and strategic point of view, a ground offensive into Gaza imho is only justifiable if you have a long-term plan of completely destroying Hamas and installing a more moderate government. Otherwise Israel only produces political wins for Hamas and dead people for little in return, since the Hamas hydra just regrowth its heads unless you kill it completely.
It is infuriating that Israel still continues its settlement policy in the West bank, especially because this causes support for organizations as Hamas and makes it hard to decidedly stand with Israel. While there are of course reasons for this policy, from an outsider's POV this just seems like such an obvious mistake that it is hard to believe anyone could make them.
I thought this post was very helpful for thinking about the allocation of blame regarding the tragic loss of life in Gaza.
Kiran, I appreciate how you offer dispassionate analysis of the war as a result of rational-ish decision making, but you're not afraid to provide ethical commentary as well.
It doesn't matter whether you translate Clausewitz's German word 'politik' as policy, politics, polity, or power, they all involve making choices and cloaking them in ethical language.
So, in this article compare: "The danger of thought-terminating clichés is their power to absolve oneself of blame by pretending there is no choice" with "Hamas knows that Israel has no choice but to strike back", and you can see that the bit "Israel has no choice" is incoherent.
Like the USA that reacted to the 11th of September attacks by going berzerk ("battle-crazy") and, as Usama bin Laden wanted, America crippling itself in Afghanistan and Iraq, so Israel has copied its Great Protector. Israel has already lost this war through its choice of conduct, which may become the instrument of its downfall from the river to the sea.
The other infathomable contradiction in this piece is what comes after "the policies of Hamas deliberately make it difficult to assess the legality of Israeli actions and seek to obfuscate moral responsibility for civilian deaths": Israel will need to show incontrovertible evidence of Hamas' malfeasance, but this is indeed going to be difficult.
So it is strange to then read "Without unusually clear evidence, it will be nearly impossible to judge Israel guilty of disproportionate use of force or of striking non-military targets. Because of Hamas’ pattern of positioning itself within those targets, it would be necessary to affirm not only that Hamas was not based there, but that Israel either knew that or was negligent in its analysis". No, the onus is on the actor and not the omitter that the double effect was legitimate: it will be nigh-on impossible to acquit Israel of disproportionate use of force or of striking non-military targets; and Hamas doesn't have to prove anything; Israel will have to prove beyond doubt that Hamas was using Palestinians as human shields.
Israel is going to get hung out to dry in The Hague because of its foolish and knavish choices, which militant Islamism (tacitly supported by a majority of Muslims) will exploit to turn on the rest of us in the West.
Good article, will share this with a few friends.
The fact that Hamas deliberately places its military facilities near concentrations of civilians needs to be propagated more. Too many still see Hamas as a kind of resistance group that fights for the people of Gaza and Palestine, when in fact they provoke their death for political capital.
From both an ethical and strategic point of view, a ground offensive into Gaza imho is only justifiable if you have a long-term plan of completely destroying Hamas and installing a more moderate government. Otherwise Israel only produces political wins for Hamas and dead people for little in return, since the Hamas hydra just regrowth its heads unless you kill it completely.
It is infuriating that Israel still continues its settlement policy in the West bank, especially because this causes support for organizations as Hamas and makes it hard to decidedly stand with Israel. While there are of course reasons for this policy, from an outsider's POV this just seems like such an obvious mistake that it is hard to believe anyone could make them.
I thought this post was very helpful for thinking about the allocation of blame regarding the tragic loss of life in Gaza.
Kiran, I appreciate how you offer dispassionate analysis of the war as a result of rational-ish decision making, but you're not afraid to provide ethical commentary as well.
@deadcarl, you might like Thomas Gregg's piece > https://charlesfiddespayne.substack.com/p/phony-handwringing
It doesn't matter whether you translate Clausewitz's German word 'politik' as policy, politics, polity, or power, they all involve making choices and cloaking them in ethical language.
So, in this article compare: "The danger of thought-terminating clichés is their power to absolve oneself of blame by pretending there is no choice" with "Hamas knows that Israel has no choice but to strike back", and you can see that the bit "Israel has no choice" is incoherent.
Like the USA that reacted to the 11th of September attacks by going berzerk ("battle-crazy") and, as Usama bin Laden wanted, America crippling itself in Afghanistan and Iraq, so Israel has copied its Great Protector. Israel has already lost this war through its choice of conduct, which may become the instrument of its downfall from the river to the sea.
The other infathomable contradiction in this piece is what comes after "the policies of Hamas deliberately make it difficult to assess the legality of Israeli actions and seek to obfuscate moral responsibility for civilian deaths": Israel will need to show incontrovertible evidence of Hamas' malfeasance, but this is indeed going to be difficult.
So it is strange to then read "Without unusually clear evidence, it will be nearly impossible to judge Israel guilty of disproportionate use of force or of striking non-military targets. Because of Hamas’ pattern of positioning itself within those targets, it would be necessary to affirm not only that Hamas was not based there, but that Israel either knew that or was negligent in its analysis". No, the onus is on the actor and not the omitter that the double effect was legitimate: it will be nigh-on impossible to acquit Israel of disproportionate use of force or of striking non-military targets; and Hamas doesn't have to prove anything; Israel will have to prove beyond doubt that Hamas was using Palestinians as human shields.
Israel is going to get hung out to dry in The Hague because of its foolish and knavish choices, which militant Islamism (tacitly supported by a majority of Muslims) will exploit to turn on the rest of us in the West.