You talk about Western political leaders’ irritation, demand for urgency in humanitarian supplies, and care in distinguishing fighters from civilians, but those who supply arms cannot credibly both support the war and call for peace. They are accountable for how it is carried out. Increasing evidence points to systemic features in the way the war is being conducted that disproportionately harms civilians: the use of AI systems to vastly increase the identification of targets is accompanied by great loosening of allowances for civilian death and injury; ‘kill zones’; using dumb bombs in targeting homes (rather than individuals); impunity for indiscriminate killing; apparent targeted shooting of children. These are not occasional mistakes in the fog of war.
Also the widespread systematic destruction of the means of life – housing, water, sanitation, health, education, agriculture, together with the thwarting of the adequate distribution of aid (both directly and indirectly) are building a predictable trajectory to a catastrophic outcome.
International humanitarian law seems to be as much about prevention as prosecution.
Prevention of catastrophe when there is so little political will to seek a political solution requires leverage and effectively using the mechanisms of accountability. This has to mean more than asking the Israeli authorities whether they are complying with international humanitarian law.
What would it really take to prevent the emerging catastrophe?
I feel one of the under-discussed potential disaster of Israel’s conduct of the war has been that it is undermined the bi-partisan support for it in the USA. For a very long time Israel enjoyed that but Netanyahu’s recklessness with the relationship and making it all too clear that he prefers Republicans (who can forget his foolish address to the Republican dominated Congress in Obama’s term) has made it increasingly acceptable for Democrats to be anti-Israel. Before they were a small minority - now we have a situation where a Democrat President orders his representative in the UN not to veto a UN resolution. Increasingly moderate Democrat politicians are openly criticizing Israel.
I know politicians don’t look to the long term but with support for the Republicans being strongest amongst the old and weakest amongst the young the time may well come when an American (Democrat) government might come to question whether the diplomatic cost of being a strong ally of Israel (there are a lot of countries with large Islamic, pro-Palestinian populations) is worth it, especially when it seems to be busy currying favour with politicians of the other side.
Part of the problem is that "Hamas" is used interchangeably for organized armed combatants, and for employees of the elected civil government e.g. teacher, mailman, police or trash collector. Asking captives to identify friends and neighbours as "Hamas" in order to be released, is not likely to clarify matters. (Shades of Un-American Activities committee hearings...)
Feed these names into existing facial recognition systems, and you have something worthy of Kafka.
Of course Hamas is a real organization with real fighters. However when the stated goal of the Gaza invasion is to eliminate Hamas completely, it is good to know exactly who or what is meant. Important and high-ranking figures can be identified using traditional means, but the way the label is currently being applied seems overly broad to me. A government employee might also be a fighter, but others will be carrying out regular essential jobs to earn a paycheque. Are they all to be eliminated as"Hamas"? Who decides, and how?
You talk about Western political leaders’ irritation, demand for urgency in humanitarian supplies, and care in distinguishing fighters from civilians, but those who supply arms cannot credibly both support the war and call for peace. They are accountable for how it is carried out. Increasing evidence points to systemic features in the way the war is being conducted that disproportionately harms civilians: the use of AI systems to vastly increase the identification of targets is accompanied by great loosening of allowances for civilian death and injury; ‘kill zones’; using dumb bombs in targeting homes (rather than individuals); impunity for indiscriminate killing; apparent targeted shooting of children. These are not occasional mistakes in the fog of war.
Also the widespread systematic destruction of the means of life – housing, water, sanitation, health, education, agriculture, together with the thwarting of the adequate distribution of aid (both directly and indirectly) are building a predictable trajectory to a catastrophic outcome.
International humanitarian law seems to be as much about prevention as prosecution.
Prevention of catastrophe when there is so little political will to seek a political solution requires leverage and effectively using the mechanisms of accountability. This has to mean more than asking the Israeli authorities whether they are complying with international humanitarian law.
What would it really take to prevent the emerging catastrophe?
I feel one of the under-discussed potential disaster of Israel’s conduct of the war has been that it is undermined the bi-partisan support for it in the USA. For a very long time Israel enjoyed that but Netanyahu’s recklessness with the relationship and making it all too clear that he prefers Republicans (who can forget his foolish address to the Republican dominated Congress in Obama’s term) has made it increasingly acceptable for Democrats to be anti-Israel. Before they were a small minority - now we have a situation where a Democrat President orders his representative in the UN not to veto a UN resolution. Increasingly moderate Democrat politicians are openly criticizing Israel.
I know politicians don’t look to the long term but with support for the Republicans being strongest amongst the old and weakest amongst the young the time may well come when an American (Democrat) government might come to question whether the diplomatic cost of being a strong ally of Israel (there are a lot of countries with large Islamic, pro-Palestinian populations) is worth it, especially when it seems to be busy currying favour with politicians of the other side.
Possible typo:
Hezbollah, backed by Iran, is still keeping Israel occupied on its southern border
Did you mean to say northern border?
I was about to say the same thing.
Part of the problem is that "Hamas" is used interchangeably for organized armed combatants, and for employees of the elected civil government e.g. teacher, mailman, police or trash collector. Asking captives to identify friends and neighbours as "Hamas" in order to be released, is not likely to clarify matters. (Shades of Un-American Activities committee hearings...)
Feed these names into existing facial recognition systems, and you have something worthy of Kafka.
Elements of that but Hamas is a real organisation with real fighters who are also part of this war. Islamic Jihad also present.
Of course Hamas is a real organization with real fighters. However when the stated goal of the Gaza invasion is to eliminate Hamas completely, it is good to know exactly who or what is meant. Important and high-ranking figures can be identified using traditional means, but the way the label is currently being applied seems overly broad to me. A government employee might also be a fighter, but others will be carrying out regular essential jobs to earn a paycheque. Are they all to be eliminated as"Hamas"? Who decides, and how?
Hamas is largely a military organisation that does not include many government employees.