world news
Why IDF hitting terrorists in schools made sense before, but not anymore – analysis
If you look objectively and without emotions at the black-and-white letter law of the laws of war, there is no question that there are some circumstances where a military can attack a school or a religious place of worship if enemy forces are using it for military purposes.
This has been Israel’s mantra in explaining to the world why it has the right to target dozens if not some hundreds, of schools and other civilian locations in Gaza: Hamas is using them so Jerusalem can target them.
Of course, there are questions of proportionality, such as that one cannot blow up a school that has one low-grade terrorist while killing 20 civilians.
But the basic principle that the IDF – at least as a matter of law – can kill terrorists in such locations if the proportional balance of terrorists to civilians is reasonable remains unimpeachable.However, the law is only the first prong of analyzing such a military action.
Even if something is legal, the maybe more important question is: is it smart, does it make sense, do the broader benefits outweigh the costs?
If the answer to that question in the war’s early months, and maybe even at least until defeating Hamas in Khan Yunis by early February was an emphatic yes, at some point it probably shifted to a ‘no’, and by May, it probably shifted to an emphatic ‘no.’
Until February, the IDF needed to erase October 7 from Hamas’s and its other enemies’ worldview as a paradigm for a helpless and weak Israel.
The IDF needed to make it clear to Hamas and other enemies that Hamas was defeated as a national military organization, that it could take control of any area of Gaza at will, and that any enemy who made a similar mistake to Hamas going too far could face the same scenes of military defeat and destruction.
In order to do that, the IDF had to defeat Hamas’s two most powerful arms, its northern Gaza battalions and its Khan Yunis battalions.
Also, defeating Hamas in northern Gaza led to a return of over 100 hostages, and there was a real chance that defeating Hamas in Khan Yunis might lead to another hostage deal.
In order to do that, the IDF could not allow Hamas to conceal itself among human shields or civilian locations.
Anywhere in northern Gaza and Khan Yunis where Hamas hid, the IDF needed to attack it, as long as proportionality was followed, even if it meant ancillary civilian casualties sometimes.
The only path forward to defeat Hamas
This was the only way to defeat and take apart Hamas’s battalions.
Also, certainly until December, and to some extent until mid/late March, Israel had strong and consistent US backing and did not yet face significant intervention from international courts.
March saw Israel make a number of errors, such as mistakenly killing seven aid workers from the World Central Kitchen organization.
There is an ongoing debate among top defense officials about how necessary or not it was for the IDF to invade Rafah, though most are happy that the IDF took over the Philadelphi Corridor.
In any case, as soon as Israel invaded Rafah, the Biden administration froze some weapons sales publicly, the International Criminal Court Prosecutor requested arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and a variety of Israeli allies started discussions about sanctions or at least weapons sales freezes.
Why did everything shift so much? It could be Hamas’s Health Ministry reporting 30,000, then 35,000, then 40,000 Palestinian civilians dead and over 90,000 wounded.
Israel can absolutely reduce those numbers by noting that 16,000 or more were probably Hamas and maybe that the number of dead is 5,000-10,000 less, given at least one UN organization admitting in May that they had collected 10,000 bodies less than the death count, so far.
But in the best-case scenario, that means Israel probably still killed 15,000 civilians, and the number could easily be closer to 25,000.
At those numbers, Israel has essentially no allies who will continue to support strikes that kill a mix of terrorists and civilians. Each such strike makes more arms embargoes, war crimes charges, and broader sanctions more likely.
Moreover, it has become abundantly clear that invading Rafah did not break Hamas much more than invading northern Gaza-Khan Yunis. Each time Hamas is attacked, they do lose some forces, but they have a significant number of forces that are just hiding and waiting patiently until Israel’s attention from “mowing the grass” in Gaza fades.
So attacking one more school and killing 20 more terrorists is not really going to make a large difference in the broader goal of getting the hostages back or bringing an end to Hamas’s political identity.
And while the IDF legal division finally started to make some headlines after 10 months, there is still almost no information about its 300 operational probes, nor is there much more about its 135 accelerated criminal and operational probes. Aside from a few indictments from Sdei Teiman, Israel has presented little to the world to assuage its doubts about Israeli justice, even regarding high-profile cases like the mistaken killing of Reuters journalists in Lebanon back in October 2023.
The bottom line is that by May, if not by February, the costs to Israel’s legitimacy of killing mixes of terrorists and civilians – even if legally permissible – have likely shifted to become not worthwhile given the negligible impact that each individual incident has on achieving the war’s broader goals.
The sooner the IDF shifts strategies, the sooner it can start the process of restoring Israeli legitimacy and cutting off the threat of arms embargoes, global war crimes prosecutions, and sanctions.
Right now is the closest Israel has been to a full war with Hezbollah since October 7.
This is true even in comparison to the period between July 30 and August 25, probably the second most dangerous period between the sides.
How do we know that the coming days, weeks, and months or two before the coming winter are so potentially explosive?
It is not just the statement that Defense Minister Yoav Gallant issued on Monday about his talk with US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin in which he said that the possibility for a diplomatic solution with Hezbollah in the North is running out.It is not just the rumors that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu intends to replace Gallant with Gideon Saar as defense minister in order to have greater support for a major operation against Hezbollah.
It is not even just that Netanyahu’s main political opposition, Benny Gantz, continues to pound the prime minister as being too scared to risk a major battle in the North, which has left the 60,000 evacuated northern residents abandoned for nearly a year.
Confidence for major Hezbollah operation
These are the open and obvious signs – and frankly, much of Israel’s political and military class has been threatening to send Hezbollah back to the Stone Age since late early spring 2024.
It is also that the Jerusalem Post has received indications behind the scenes at both the political and military levels from sources who before were pouring cold water on the public statements, who are now signaling that the public statements are serious.
The reasons they give show how realities have changed a lot throughout the war.
For most of the war, the main reason not to get into a big fight with Hezbollah was to avoid distractions that might handicap the IDf from taking apart all 24 of Hamas’s battalions in Gaza.
As of August 21, Gallant declared Hamas’s last battalion in Rafah defeated.
Despite Netanyahu’s publicly threatening words and tone, another major reason that a big war with Hezbollah was not likely going to really happen until now was that the prime minister was privately terrified of how many Israelis might die from the expected Hezbollah onslaught of 6,000-8,000 rockets per day in the event of such a war.
That seems to have changed as of August 25.
On August 25, Hezbollah planned to launch several hundred and maybe up to 1,000 rockets on Israel, including on critical Israeli intelligence headquarters bases just North of Tel Aviv.
Netanyahu and the war cabinet instructed the IDF not to launch a full preemptive war on Hezbollah because, among other reasons, he was still worried about the impact on the Israeli home front.
However, something changed radically as a result of the events of August 25.
Since October 7, Netanyahu has doubted the IDF in areas where the objective risk was higher, even if the military supposedly would have the upper hand.
Sources have indicated that behind closed doors he was initially hesitant for each of the three invasions of Gaza; northern Gaza in late October, Khan Yunis in December, and Rafah in May.
Yet on August 25, the IDF did not just beat Hezbollah – it cleaned house.
Despite IDF’s substantive victories over Hamas and small tactical victories against Hezbollah, this was the first time that the IDF won a major and complex strategic victory over Hezbollah during this war.
It blew up the vast majority of the rockets and drones Hezbollah intended to attack Israel with before these threats could even be launched.
Hezbollah neither killed nor damaged anyone or anything of significance, while the IDF destroyed thousands of Hezbollah rockets.
Suddenly, Netanyahu has a newfound confidence that he can afford a major operation against Hezbollah with much fewer losses to the home front than he had expected.
What if – instead of 5,000 to 10,000 dead Israelis from tens of thousands of Hezbollah rockets over several weeks – he could hit Hezbollah harder than it’s ever been hit before – and destroy so many of its rocket launchers on the ground, that Israeli casualties might be not just smaller, but exponentially smaller?
Another factor was until now there was a good chance that Hamas would agree to a ceasefire and that such a deal would lead Hezbollah to unilaterally stop attacking Israel, just as it did during the November 23-30 ceasefire with Hamas.
While this is not impossible, the chances of a ceasefire with Hamas now are lower than they have been in several months after both sides have dug in on various issues after having seemed to have navigated around 90% of the obstacles.
All along, the only other option that has been discussed if diplomacy failed was a major Israeli operation.
And Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah is still furious about the killing of his military chief Fuad Shukr by the IDF on July 30, so no one views him as being more flexible now than in other periods.
Finally, the winter comes into play.
Sources have told the Post that if more than 4-6 weeks pass without an operation, it may be impossible or much harder to carry out such an operation until Spring 2025.
That would mean condemning the northern residents to another 6 months outside of their homes, something becoming increasingly untenable domestically in Israel.
Pressed that the IDF managed a successful invasion of Khan Yunis and the finishing off of Hamas in Shejaia in northern Gaza in the middle of winter 2023-2024, sources responded that the winter in mountainous Lebanon is far more fierce and difficult to manage than in the deserts of Gaza.
None of this means that a new broader war with Hezbollah is certain.
It would still be a massively risky proposition for Israel, Hezbollah, and also for the sides’ sponsors: the US as well as Iran.
The US could be drawn into a regional war or at least be seen as having failed to prevent a larger war after a year of diplomacy, something that could impact the current US presidential election.
Iran could lose Hezbollah as its major potential threat to hold over Israel should the Jewish state dare to think of attacking the Islamic Republic’s nuclear facilities. Hezbollah would undoubtedly remain the main player in Lebanon but might lose many of its most feared capabilities.
But this is clearly the riskiest moment in the North since October 7.
Time might have been on Israel’s side for significant portions of the current war, but it no longer is and likely has not been since April-May.
Yemen’s ballistic missile attack on Israel on Sunday made this clearer than ever.
Too much of the conversation about how long the war should go revolves around whether more military pressure can crack Hamas and get the Israeli hostages back versus whether a deal must be cut now, even if Hamas remains in power, so as to get the hostages back as time runs out for them.
Too little of the conversation takes into account how much more vulnerable Israel is becoming to attack on new fronts. Regarding these new fronts, Israel might never have taken direct hits or might have avoided taking direct hits for years or decades more if not for the length of this war, gradually exposing additional asymmetric holes in Israel’s military power.In order of current severity, Israel is facing seven fronts of attack: Lebanon, Iran, Yemen, the West Bank, Gaza, Syria, and Iraq.
That’s right: Gaza is now probably only the fifth most dangerous front militarily, even though Israel is still treating it as the most important in terms of military resources (and diplomatically, it may be the most important front.)
Originally, when longer meant from October until January, part of the purpose of being willing to drag out the war longer was to take the necessary time to defeat Hamas in different pockets of Gaza while leaving time to move the Palestinian civilian population from place to place in between invasions.
Another part was to use the mix of ongoing pressure and threats of continued impending military invasions and pressure to wear Hamas down into cutting a deal to return the Israeli hostages.
A third part was that a slower war using strategic air strikes, tanks, and artillery as a prelude to infantry invasions of various areas meant fewer infantry casualties.
The theory was that Israel’s air defense was strong enough to withstand whatever Hamas could fire on the home front up until the point that the IDF destroyed most of Hamas’s rocket firing capability around December-January.
But all of this was assuming the war with Hamas would end around January – the official estimate of all defense officials in October-November – and that the other fronts would stay relatively quiet.
But as the war drew on, Hezbollah started firing on a larger number of northern towns and cities; Yemen joined the war, at first only against Eilat, but eventually also striking Tel Aviv, and now aiming again for central Israel.
Iran started pushing much harder to threaten Israel from the West Bank, Syria, and Iraq, as well as encouraging its proxies in Lebanon and Yemen to take more risks against Israel.
Israel’s increasing tolerance for terrorism
Prior to the war, Israel had come to terms with a horrible, nearly 20-year-long conceit that it would be “ok” with low-level rocket and other attacks on its Gaza corridor villages as long as this did not touch the rest of the country.
From March 2022 until October 7, 2023, most of Israel came to terms with it being “ok” for significant waves of terror against Jews in the West Bank as long as not too much of it crossed the Green Line.
Starting on October 8, 2023, Israel decided it was “ok” for 60,000 northern residents to be evacuated from their homes and for whole towns and cities to be ghost towns, not just for a few weeks, but for nearly a year and counting with no deadline in sight.
Then, it was “ok” for Eilat to be attacked from time to time by the Houthis as long as the missiles were shot down outside of Israeli airspace.
On April 13-14, it became “ok” for Iran to launch over 300 aerial threats at Israel as long as a remarkable number of the threats were shot down, people were not killed, and Israel got to “deter” Tehran in a retaliatory strike against its S-300 anti-aircraft missile system on April 19.
It was “ok” that Israel got into a huge fight about a partial arms freeze with the US in May and that the International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice, which had warned Israel but stayed on the sidelines from October to May, went more all out after the Jewish state in May.
It was “ok” that Hezbollah in August wanted to target 11 IDF bases and northern Tel Aviv key intelligence headquarters as long as the military preemptively struck hard enough on August 25 that Hezbollah’s main goals were thwarted.
The truth is that many of Israel’s nuanced approaches would have worked if the war had ended a long time ago or shortly after the nuanced retaliation.
And there were critics of Israel bashing it from November onward.
But when time continues to drag on, Israel’s enemies on many fronts have more time to dissect the way the IDF operates and when and where it lets its guard down more, and then get lots of chances to test the many potential holes. When time drags on, Israel’s legitimacy problems move from critics to its top allies like the US, UK, and France and metastasize with the international courts from a minor problem to a major crisis.
On Thursday of last week, I was in Rafah in Gaza. There were no Palestinians to be seen. No battles. No gunfire. I had my helmet and flak jacket, and they moved us around in a Namer armored vehicle. I felt as safe as could be. Of course, there are still thousands of Hamas terrorists in Gaza, and if anyone ignores them as we did on October 7, there could be another disaster in Israel’s future.
But right now, they can barely pose a threat to IDF forces a block away from them – and that only if the forces are not in Namers and lack air and tank support – let alone to anyone outside of Gaza.
This morning, waking up at 6:21 a.m. in Modiin to rocket sirens after months of quiet, not knowing whether Hezbollah or Iran was firing missiles at us, only to then learn that it was the Houthis, I felt far less safe than I had in Gaza.
When I traveled to Paatei Modiin Train Station Platform 4 this morning and saw the impact of shrapnel on an escalator I have walked on a thousand times, it was clear how many people could have been killed if the Houthis had fired an hour or two later than 6:21 a.m. This is without even getting to the mass mayhem and death that even one ballistic missile getting through to a populated area could cause.
How the war should end, and whether it should be with a quick ceasefire to get back the hostages or with a relatively quick but intense major invasion of Lebanon, synchronized with major strikes on other parties threatening Israel, is an important debate.
Yet, whichever direction is chosen, Israel should pick a direction and act to wrap things up rapidly and decisively.
And anyone who thinks that the war can just continue with no price on these other fronts beyond Gaza until after the US elections in November is kidding themselves and ignoring the writing on the wall on a grossly negligent and serial basis.
The IDF must occupy southern Lebanon to establish a “security corridor” against Hezbollah, Likud MK Ariel Kallner demanded in an interview with Maariv on Sunday.
The coalition lawmaker called on the government, led by his faction leader Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to address tensions along the northern border by conquering Lebanese lands, from the border to as far north as the Litani River.
“Our reality can no longer continue as is,” Kellner told Maariv. “The sole, unavoidable conclusion is that the current border in the North is unsustainable.”
Kellner further claimed that today’s border between Israel and Lebanon is curbing the government’s ability to “provide security for residents of northern Israel.”Kellner: Life along Israel’s northern border can no longer be supported
When asked about the steps Israel’s military should take to destroy the threat Hezbollah poses on the North, Kellner argued that Israel has only two options: “We either create a ‘security zone’ by controlling the Litani River, or life in northern Israel can no longer be supported.
“That is our equation; there is no other way around it,” he added.
Kellner spoke to Maariv while visiting the North as part of a delegation of lawmakers from the Knesset’s Eretz Yisrael Lobby, which advocates for expanding settlements in the West Bank.
Gallant ‘not the same minister who called to bomb Lebanon’
During his visit, Kellner also attacked Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, calling on him to resign.
As per the Likud lawmaker, Gallant is “no longer the defense minister who spoke on bombing Lebanon back to the Stone Age” and must be replaced.
However, Kellner stressed his support for Netanyahu, arguing that the prime minister “continues to seek out victory” amid international pressure.
-
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
-
Camera10 months agoDJI Air 3 vs. Mini 4 Pro: which compact drone is best?
-
Solar Energy10 months agoGlencore eyes options on battery recycling project
-
world news10 months ago
Strong majority of Americans support Israel-Hamas hostage deal
-
TOP SCEINCE5 months agoCan animals count?
-
Camera3 years ago80,000MP panoramas: EarthCam announces world’s highest-resolution robotic webcam
