world news
Anti-Israel complaints about war conduct not grounded in principle
One of the most jarring juxtapositions following the October 7 massacre has been the about-face of anti-Israel activists from celebration to wailing on social media. “Gaza just broke out of prison,” journalist Mariam Barghouti wrote on X the day of the massacre, laughing in another post that “Gazans managed to outdo the most technologically advanced and funded surveillance program in an hour with almost no resources.” On October 23 she mourned that “Gaza has been destroyed. Save the little that remains.” One X user going by the handle “MissFalasteena” wrote on October 7 that “my moms making knafa to celebrate, I cannot, she’s been waiting for this one,” and the next day that “October 7th became a new holiday for Palestinians.” Her holiday spirit was cut short by Israeli military action against Hamas.
Socialist activist Nicholas Cruse wrote on X that he had “no idea what’s going on but I hope Israel gets wiped out.”
While advocating mass violence on October 7, he saw no issue with complaining later that month that “we are probably witnessing the most brutal massacre, the biggest crime against humanity in my lifetime, meanwhile all we can do is rage tweet.” There is no shortage of examples of activists, academics, and influencers who posted in a similar pattern, and the side-by-side comparisons of these contrasting positions are referred to by Israel supporters as incidents of FAFO (F*** around, find out). Moments of FAFO are shared because of the catharsis of seeing that those cheering for death and destruction receive their emotional comeuppance, but FAFO examples are also meant to demonstrate a degree of hypocrisy by the anti-Israel crowd. Anti-Israel activists celebrated all manner of violent actions on October 7, only to claim that such violence was being inflicted on Gazans and decry it. They have bemoaned the Israel-Hamas war as a second “Nakba,” but a great many of them openly support the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Israel as a solution to the conflict. They claim that innocent civilians are being indiscriminately killed in Gaza, but supported the wanton slaughter by Hamas on the Simchat Torah holiday.They point to dubious Hamas casualty reports that indicate that almost half the Gazan deaths were of children, but that the death of Israeli children was an unavoidable consequence of “resistance” and “decolonization.”
The charge of hypocrisy, however, doesn’t seem to lead terrorism supporters to reconsider their positions or the validity of the tactics. This is because hypocrisy requires one to hold and advocate for a principle, but then blatantly violate this principle. Hamas supporters do not behold themselves to any principles on war conduct. When they level charges of ethnic cleansing, indiscriminate violence, infanticide or any war crime, they do not believe that these are evils – the source of the evil is not the action but the actor.This is evident by chants of “by any means necessary,” at anti-Israel protests. Activists warn not to question the form that Palestinian “resistance” takes, but do not believe that Israel is allowed to operate along the same ethical lines in its own operations.
The laws of warfare draw a distinction between the justness of a war, jus ad bellum, and justness of conduct during war, jus in bello. This prevents atrocities from being conducted even by defenders and those engaging in humanitarian intervention. Genocide of an entire nation is not a valid option, even against an aggressor like Nazi Germany. The anti-Israel crowd draw no such distinction – for them, all actions are defined by the legitimacy of the jus ad bellum. Israel in their eyes is the aggressor, while Palestinian factions are defenders, rendering all actions by the former unjust and those by the latter just, regardless of their content and outcomes. Israel supporters have been frustrated by the hypocrisy of anti-Israel activists, who support certain tactics by Hamas but attack Israel for allegedly doing the same, and have tried to point out this Janus-faced position.Arguing with hypocrisy
However, attempts to argue against this hypocrisy will usually fail since the legitimacy of an individual action is not their concern. They are using the veneer of concern about International Humanitarian Law and war crimes as a weapon. They know that speaking of human rights and war crimes is the language of Israelis and gullible westerners, but it is meant to cause hesitancy in Israeli forces and pressure from the international community. If the roles were reversed there would be no talk of proportionality and distribution, as demonstrated when Hamas had a momentary advantage over Israel on October 7.
“When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles,” author Frank Herbert wrote in his novel Children of Dune, which nicely encapsulates the Hamas supporters’ approach. Arguing about hypocrisy will only result in a waste of energy, unless directed at third party audiences who do not subscribe to revolutionary ideologies that hold the same lack of principle. The only principle that Hamas supporters hold to is that of victory at any cost. Israel must ensure that the terrorist organization must never again have a victory to celebrate, or a situation in which they again can shed their sheep’s clothes of human rights to indulge in their ravenous lupine intent. The writer is a Jerusalem Post reporter and an IDF infantry reservist serving on the Gaza border.
Everyone wants the Mossad on their side when it comes to the debate over the Philadelphi Corridor.
The Jerusalem Post has reported multiple times since May that the unchanging position of the Mossad is that Israel can and should withdraw from the corridor if that would bring back between 18-30 hostages and provided Phase 1 of the hostage deal with Hamas would allow the IDF to return to attacking Hamas in the corridor after around 45 days.
The Post and other outlets have also reported that Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and the IDF high command favor a deal under such terms, including temporarily withdrawing from the corridor to get some of the hostages back.
Yet on Sunday, an anonymous source who was present during the most recent diplomatic-security cabinet meeting leaked to the media that Mossad Director David Barnea supported Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s position not to withdraw from the corridor.In fact, the anonymous source went even further saying that Barnea did not think Netanyahu should move toward Hamas on the issue “even one millimeter.”
Although… actually, that is not what the anonymous source said if the leaked statement is looked at carefully. Rather, it made a messy and hazy statement about Barnea supporting the Israeli position on the corridor to the extent that it would be acceptable to the US.Anyone who has followed the US position knows that it wishes Israel had stopped the war in December-January and for sure by May, and has tried everything it could to pressure Netanyahu to withdraw from the corridor.
Now, once the US said it could not get Netanyahu to completely withdraw from the corridor, it started to explore if it could get Hamas and Egypt to agree to a small Israeli presence in portions of the corridor, while otherwise generally withdrawing. That is not the same thing as thinking that Netanyahu’s stance on the corridor is the right move.The Mossad is in a somewhat similar position.
Mossad’s current position
There are some points where the Mossad’s position is tougher than the US position, but generally, since May, Barnea has been closer to the US, IDF, and Gallant’s view that it is time to cut a deal, even temporarily sacrificing control of the corridor, than he has been to Netanyahu’s staunch opposition to concessions in that area.
Also, usually, when the Mossad puts something out backing Netanyahu in negotiations, it is in its own name, not in the name of some anonymous cabinet official.The absence of a direct statement of support for Netanyahu from the Mossad itself is deafening.
So why is someone (from Netanyahu’s side) trying to pretend that the Mossad stands with the prime minister on this? Bodies of six hostages, who had been alive until last week, were just recovered.Netanyahu is under the greatest domestic pressure in Israel to compromise that he has been under possibly since the start of the war.
As he explains his position to the public, if he can claim that the defense establishment is split – IDF versus the Mossad – then he does not stand alone. His position looks principled and part of a serious strategy instead of about politics. Likewise, Gallant and the IDF want the Mossad on their side so they can present a united professionals’ front versus a political front. The truth is even without the Mossad, there is some principled opposition to cutting a deal if the question is saving the most Jewish lives on a long-term basis by ensuring Hamas is destroyed. But this also requires saying out loud that Netanyahu would be willing to let hostages die as a price to achieve that goal – because that is what happened this past week. Netanyahu is not ready to do this, so instead he would prefer if the battle can be about who supports who and a divide within the defense establishment.However, the more hostages die, there also becomes less incentive for a deal to save the shrinking total number of them still alive.
Whatever the Mossad’s view is, there is no question at this point that Netanyahu is the decider about the question of saving hostages versus keeping the corridor.
World soccer’s governing body FIFA has delayed again its decision on a Palestinian bid to have Israel suspended from international soccer over the war in Gaza.
FIFA said late on Friday it would now consider the Palestine Football Association’s (PFA) proposals against the Israel Football Association (IFA) in October.
The PFA had submitted a proposal to suspend Israel in May, with FIFA ordering an urgent legal evaluation and promising to address it at an extraordinary meeting of its council in July.
FIFA said last month the legal assessment would now be shared with its council by Aug. 31.The Zurich-based body said it had now moved the assessment back to October.
“FIFA has received the independent legal assessment of the Palestine Football Association’s proposals against Israel,” FIFA said.
“This assessment will be sent to the FIFA Council to review in order that the subject can be discussed at its next meeting which will take place in October.”
FIFA declined to give further details of the assessment, or when in October the meeting would take place.
The PFA did not respond to requests for comment.
Accusations against the IFA
The Palestinian proposal accuses the IFA of complicity in violations of international law by the Israeli government, discrimination against Arab players, and inclusion in its league of clubs located in Palestinian territory.
The IFA has rejected the allegations.
The PFA has said at least 92 Palestinian players have been killed in the war, football infrastructure has been destroyed, its leagues suspended and its national team required to play World Cup qualifiers abroad.
In its proposal, the PFA wanted FIFA to adopt “appropriate sanctions” against Israeli teams, including the national side and clubs.
The IDF is doing a better job at catching Palestinian terrorists than Jewish ones.
Anecdotal evidence and statistical evidence both bear this out.
As of August 2024, there were 9,881 Palestinian security inmates being held by Israel.
3,432 Palestinians were being held in administrative detention along with 1,584 Palestinian “unlawful combatants,” 2,074 sentenced prisoners, and 2,791 pre-indictment or pre-conviction detainees.We also know that in the West Bank alone, close to 5,000 Palestinians have been detained over the course of the war.
Sometimes Palestinian terrorists are not immediately caught after an attack, but quite often they are, and it is very rare that they are not caught or killed within a period of weeks or months.
Yet, in multiple February 2023 incidents of Jewish terrorists attacking Palestinians in Huwara, we know that out of hundreds of Jewish attackers, less than 10 were arrested, and an even smaller number seem to be getting prosecuted.
So far out of over 100 Jewish terrorists who attacked the Palestinian village of Jit in mid-August, only four have been detained.
These trends are not new.
Outgoing IDF Central Commander for the West Bank, Maj. Gen, Yedhua Fuchs, said this in his final speech on July 8, current Shin Bet Chief Ronen Bar recently accused officials like National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir of sometimes indirectly and sometimes almost explicitly encouraging the phenomenon, and former Shin Bet and IDF Central Commanders have been sounding somewhat similar warnings on and off certainly since 2014.
The IDF and Shin Bet have also accused Ben Gvir of discouraging the police from reining in Jewish violence, whether in the West Bank or against humanitarian aid trucks trying to get to Kerem Shalom to bring food to Gaza Palestinians earlier in the current war.
There has been extremist Jewish violence against Palestinians with significantly below expectations arrests for many years, even though that violence is still at a much lower volume than Palestinian violence.
The problem isn’t bringing caught perpetrators to justice, that has been happening many times since 2014, when Palestinians have been killed by a Jew or Jews.
Once caught, Israel has pushed hard to prosecute such persons.
On August 15, the Jerusalem Post reported exclusively that the 2019 indictment against a full-bodied minor (his identity is under gag order) for the alleged killing of Palestinian female and mother Aysha Rabi in October 2018 could be close to a verdict in later 2024 or early 2025.
This would not be the only such case of Jewish terrorists facing justice for violence against Palestinians, with the 2014 murderer of Palestinian minor Muhammad Abu Khadir, Yoseph Chaim Ben David, and the 2015 murderer of the Palestinian Dawabsheh family, Amiram Ben Uliel, both sentenced to life in jail in recent years.
Elor Ben Azariah, Ben Deri, and other IDF soldiers have also been given prison time for killing Palestinians.
But this does not address the fact that most Jewish terrorists are never caught in the first place.
So why does Israel catch Jewish terrorists less often than Palestinian ones?
Some of it is the constant passing the ball back and forth between the IDF and the Police, neither of who wants the politically unpopular job of reining in Jewish violence against Palestinians.
Anyone who does that job “well” in recent years comes under attack by Ben Gvir and others who seem to always be opposed to indicting or convicting Jews accused of attacking Palestinians.
Top IDF sources have made it clear to the Post that the military’s main role is to fight wars against other foreign militaries like Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas, not to enforce law and order to block small-scale Jewish violence against Palestinians. They believe that the police should be handling Jewish violence in the West Bank, whereas the police, even before Ben Gvir, said they could not carry out large operations in Palestinian areas without the IDF taking the lead.
What has changed since Huwara in 2023 and now with Jit, is that the attacks by Jews on Palestinians are no longer solely small scale.
Now there is a pattern of large scale attacks even if the number of them is still small in relative terms.
During the Second Intifada, Israel decided that it could not view Palestinian terrorism from the West Bank as a mere “law enforcement” issue with very limited rules of engagement.
Rather, it was a terrorism issue, which meant more aggressive rules of engagement.
If a Palestinian throws a rock at an IDF vehicle and breaks the windshield and then flees, even if no one in the IDF vehicle was hurt and even though the Palestinian is running away, and as such no longer presents an immediate threat, IDF open fire rules allow shooting for the Palestinian’s legs to make sure he does not escape.
At Jit, despite over 100 Jews attacking Palestinians and the IDF soldiers “live being in danger” from the Jews as well, all they did was physically push the Jewish attackers out of the village and at most fire in the air.
Sources said that they failed to arrest any of the over 100 Jews because it was hard to catch the attackers running in all different directions at night.
But if the soldiers were allowed to shoot for the legs when trying to arrest Jews involved in large scale attacks, maybe they would have caught more of them. Maybe also fewer Jews would risk attacking Palestinians.
Confronted with this possible change to the open fire rules, both current and former IDF officials who handle such issues did not seem to view such a change as remotely likely.
Some said this question was very dependent on the unique circumstances on the ground, which only the commander seeing things in real time could decide. Others said that there was no principled reason why IDF soldiers could not open fire on the legs of fleeing Jewish attackers, but that this could only be employed if there was no less lethal way of arresting them.
Yet, these responses present the issue as if there is not already evidence that the IDF is doing an extremely poor job of catching such people.
4 out of 100 is a 4% success rate. Clearly, less lethal means are not working and whoever the commander on the ground has been has not acted aggressively enough. This was also the conclusion of the IDF probe issued on Wednesday of the Jit incident.
A much more honest read is that IDF soldiers shooting at Jews legs (even not trying to kill) to protect Palestinians would just be either too politically explosive or likely too many IDF soldiers would ignore the orders and fake some technical sounding reason why they could not fire (such as innocent people being mixed in with attackers.)
There might be creative alternatives. Firing some kind of tracer that cannot be removed or object which could sedate someone trying to flee.
A huge permanent contingent of soldiers guarding all crossover areas throughout the West Bank could succeed, but is also unrealistic in terms of resources.
In the meantime, it is not clear that the IDF has seriously contended with how it will prevent the next Huwara or Jit. If that does not change, no one should be surprised when another IDF probe comes out apologizing for failing to protect Palestinians.
-
Solar Energy3 years agoDLR testing the use of molten salt in a solar power plant in Portugal
-
world news10 months ago
Gulf, France aid Gaza, Russia evacuates citizens
-
Camera3 years agoCharles ‘Chuck’ Geschke, co-founder of Adobe and inventor of the PDF, dies at 81
-
Solar Energy10 months agoGlencore eyes options on battery recycling project
-
Camera10 months agoDJI Air 3 vs. Mini 4 Pro: which compact drone is best?
-
TOP SCEINCE5 months agoCan animals count?
-
Camera3 years ago80,000MP panoramas: EarthCam announces world’s highest-resolution robotic webcam
-
world news10 months ago
Strong majority of Americans support Israel-Hamas hostage deal
