Hi Matt! I’ve thought a lot about what a proportionate response could be … and I’m certainly no expert! But what gets me every time, is that while yes, there are rules of engagement , Hamas warfare does not follow them …. And while Palestine is part of the Geneva Convention (or used to be), they clearly are also not respecting the 3 major parts : “ Civilians are to be protected from murder, torture or brutality, and from discrimination on the basis of race, nationality, religion or political opinion. Hospital and safety zones may be established for the wounded, sick, and aged, children under 15, expectant mothers and mothers of children under seven.”
I have read that many hospitals are also Hamas storage facilities and havens. And possibly , maybe Israel hasn’t formulated a plan on how proceed since these hospitals are essentially also used as military bases (again, this is if that’s really true).
It’s hard to process all this as someone not
An expert or politically influenced. I wonder, what would a proportionate response be? I would kill, if necessary for my own daughter’s safety, for example …. But there is a difference between just retaliation / defense and revenge.
Anyway, thank you for helping me to
process from a different perspective. It’s truly helpful.
Alicia, you raised one of the most difficult problems in thinking about this: the fact that Hamas uses "human shields," or places military installations in or near civilian areas (like hospitals). The goal is that either Israel will not target those military installations out of fear of hitting the civilians, or that Israel will go ahead and attack the military installation, and then Hamas will use the inevitable civilian casualties as propaganda against Israel.
There is no easy answer on what to do in that situation. International law, including the principle of proportionality, still applies in those situations, so you can't just say, "Well, it's Hamas's fault there are civilian casualties." But on the other hand, taken by itself, that would create an incentive for groups to use human shields, knowing it will protect them from attack. I think Israel's overall approach-- to provide warning to civilians and an opportunity to evacuate-- is a good one.
The concern I expressed in the article is that the evacuation order for Gaza was so broad, and so impractical, it seems like Israel is not even bothering with identifying specific military installations as targets and doing the necessary calculations of military necessity vs. civilian harm.
Hi Matt! I’ve thought a lot about what a proportionate response could be … and I’m certainly no expert! But what gets me every time, is that while yes, there are rules of engagement , Hamas warfare does not follow them …. And while Palestine is part of the Geneva Convention (or used to be), they clearly are also not respecting the 3 major parts : “ Civilians are to be protected from murder, torture or brutality, and from discrimination on the basis of race, nationality, religion or political opinion. Hospital and safety zones may be established for the wounded, sick, and aged, children under 15, expectant mothers and mothers of children under seven.”
I have read that many hospitals are also Hamas storage facilities and havens. And possibly , maybe Israel hasn’t formulated a plan on how proceed since these hospitals are essentially also used as military bases (again, this is if that’s really true).
It’s hard to process all this as someone not
An expert or politically influenced. I wonder, what would a proportionate response be? I would kill, if necessary for my own daughter’s safety, for example …. But there is a difference between just retaliation / defense and revenge.
Anyway, thank you for helping me to
process from a different perspective. It’s truly helpful.
Alicia, you raised one of the most difficult problems in thinking about this: the fact that Hamas uses "human shields," or places military installations in or near civilian areas (like hospitals). The goal is that either Israel will not target those military installations out of fear of hitting the civilians, or that Israel will go ahead and attack the military installation, and then Hamas will use the inevitable civilian casualties as propaganda against Israel.
There is no easy answer on what to do in that situation. International law, including the principle of proportionality, still applies in those situations, so you can't just say, "Well, it's Hamas's fault there are civilian casualties." But on the other hand, taken by itself, that would create an incentive for groups to use human shields, knowing it will protect them from attack. I think Israel's overall approach-- to provide warning to civilians and an opportunity to evacuate-- is a good one.
The concern I expressed in the article is that the evacuation order for Gaza was so broad, and so impractical, it seems like Israel is not even bothering with identifying specific military installations as targets and doing the necessary calculations of military necessity vs. civilian harm.
I hope this was insightful!