World Politics News   Articles for World Politics Course

Israel is conducting a very intense military campaign on what it regards as places where terrorists can be found. The emphasis of the Israeli attacks is on the Gaza Strip, but it has also conducted attacks on southern Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. The Israeli government justifies these actions as acts of legitimate self-defense against those who conducted the brutal raid on Israeli kibbutzim on 7 October. I firmly believe in the right of states to self-defense, but believe that current Israeli actions do not fall under that exception for the legitimate use of violence.

The 7 October attack was unquestionably a war crime and an abomination, and the grievous state of the Palestinian population in the Gaza Strip does not in any way justify the acts committed against Israeli and foreign citizens. Israel is justified in trying to prevent a repeat of those horrific actions.

The relevant question is what does it mean to eliminate Hamas? And will military action eliminate Hamas? I think there is a great deal of ambiguity about what that objective means. The Israeli Defense Minister, Yoav Gallant, said that “We will eliminate everything”:

Giora Eiland is a senior research associate at the Institute for National Security Studies and former head of the Israeli National Security Council and he made this comment: “Gaza will become a place where no human being can exist, and I say this as a means rather than an end. I say this because there is no other option for ensuring the security of the State of Israel. We are fighting an existential war.” Revital “Tally” Gotliv, a member of the Knesset for Israel PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party, said this: “‘I urge you to do everything and use Doomsday weapons fearlessly against our enemies,’ adding that Israel ‘must use everything in its arsenal,’ she said, adding, ‘Only an explosion that shakes the Middle East will restore this country’s dignity, strength and security! It’s time to kiss doomsday. Shooting powerful missiles without limit. Not flattening a neighbourhood. Crushing and flattening Gaza. … without mercy! without mercy!’” Finally, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich declared, “It’s time to be cruel,” and Knesset member Ariel Kallner called for a “Nakba that will overshadow the Nakba of 48,” a reference to the massacre and expulsion of more than 750,000 Palestinians upon Israel’s founding. These are the opinions of individuals and not necessarily that of the Israeli government, but some of these statements come from officials within that government.

These are not calls for self-defense. These statements reflect the accurate assessment that Hamas exists in the context of a population of 2.1 million people, half of which are children. Under such circumstances, it is unquestionably difficult to separate civilians from combatants. Using Mao’s fish/water metaphor for the relationship between guerilla forces and the civilian population, one can ask the question: is it morally acceptable to drain the water to eliminate one particularly noxious species of fish even if that course of action means that all the other fish will die?

At this point, it is impossible to tell how much of Gaza needs to be destroyed in order to eliminate Hamas. We do know that Israel has encouraged the people of Gazan to leave, and its embargo on much food, water, and fuel coming into the war zone will accomplish what Israeli military action fails to accomplish. But the critical question is where will the people of Gaza go?

The people of Gaza live in limbo and their political status is uncertain. It has been a permanent refugee camp since 2005 (when the Israelis withdrew). The refugee population has been maintained through the efforts of the United Nations and private groups who have maintained a steady flow of life’s necessities into the territory. But Israel has controlled the borders of the Gaza Strip and no one who lives in Gaza has the right to move freely in and out of the zone or to have access to food, water, or fuel without the consent of the Israeli government. Thus, there is a powerful argument to make that Israel has a moral obligation to assure the security and well-being of those whose lives they control.

However, many argue that other states, such as Egypt, have an obligation to give sanctuary to Gazan refugees. There is merit to this argument, but it permits the Israelis to slough off their obligation to the people whose lives they have controlled. And it begs the question of who will be responsible for reconstructing the infrastructure of the Gaza that has been destroyed by the military actions of the Israeli government. Writing for The Atlantic, Grame Wood explains:

“The fear that the worst-case scenario will happen is not something Israel is trying its hardest to dispel. It is a promise of permanent demographic change. When Israeli forces left Gaza 18 years ago, Israeli settlements had been established, chiefly in the southern portion of Gaza, and it took the authority of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to order their forcible removal. Pangs of conscience over Palestinian dispossession were not, shall we say, his principal motivation. The Jewish state could most easily maintain its Jewish character when it was not mixed up with non-Jews. And Gaza, particularly Gaza City, is so packed with Muslims that no amount of Israeli-settlement construction could tip the balance toward Jews. That would take ethnic cleansing.

“One can see why residents of Gaza City might, in this context, be reluctant to leave just because Israel tells them to. Gazans know that if they leave, they will have to rely on the goodwill of Israel to let them back in and not use this moment to remake the region’s demography. Even if Israel cannot empty the city and replace the population, the government could render the area uninhabitable and nudge some portion of its Arab inhabitants into permanent exile.”

So, the most important question now is what does Israel plan for the Gaza if the military objective of eliminating Hamas is attained? Will it aid in the reconstruction of the territory? Will it occupy the territory with military force? Will it allow the refugees to return? Will Israel open up parts of Gaza to the settlers?

It is only by the answers to these questions that we can assess the extent to which the Israelis are exercising their right of self-defense or whether the Israelis intend to permanently remove the threats by eliminating a people hostile to its control over them.