As the war in Gaza reaches six months, I have an uneasy sense of deja vu. Israel faces many of the same challenges and makes many of the same mistakes that America faced in Iraq.
Last week, when I read my colleagues Aaron Boxerman and Iyad Abuheweira’s excellent report on Israel’s recent fight to seize Al-Shifa hospital, which it attacked last year, one sentence caught my attention: Ta. Another military operation took place in mid-March to stamp out what they say is a new insurgency by Palestinian militants in northern Gaza. ”
Consider the phrase “reinsurgency.” That means Israel was doing exactly what we did for much of the Iraq war – fighting again on land we supposedly already occupied. And the sad reality of those horrific battles reminded me of a seemingly counterintuitive truth: In the fight against terrorists, providing humanitarian aid is not just a moral obligation. It is a military necessity.
The terrible civilian casualties and looming famine in Gaza are human tragedies that grieve us all. They are also directly related to the outcome of war. Modern militaries like Israel’s are absolutely capable of defeating Hamas in direct confrontation, whether or not it provides aid to civilians. But as we have learned in our wars overseas, we cannot sustain victory unless we meet the most basic needs of Gazans.
So far, most of the international attention has focused on Israel’s actions at the tip of the spear. The question dominating the debate is whether Israel’s actions in combating Hamas comply with the laws of war and Israel’s own moral standards.It’s an important question – one that deserves a full answer when the fog of war lifts – but the war may be decided rear In the first phase of combat, Israel faces another legal and moral obligation: that of an occupying power.
I want to be very precise and clear here. “Occupying power” does not mean that Israel should permanently conquer (much less settle) Gaza territory. I am referring to the technical legal status of the invading force once it has taken control of the invaded territory. The laws of war are being implemented in phases, with Phase 1 regulating the actual combat operations of the initial attack and Phase 2 regulating how attacking forces govern their areas of control before transitioning to permanent civilian control. Think of it as regulating.
A decisive and effective military action can inflict heavy losses on the enemy, but not only the first attack or even the first invasion will inflict losses. They create a vacuum. Hamas was not only the dominant military force in Gaza; It was also the government. Removing Hamas from power could have implications very similar to de-Baathization in Iraq. It destroys civil service services and deprives us of the means to maintain public order.
Unless the same military that created the vacuum fills it with either its own effective government or an allied government, the enemy will maintain the gap. There is hope in that. This is why phrases like “renewed rebellion” and “reverse infiltration into the north” are so ominous. These show that the vacuum has not yet been filled and there is room for Hamas to make a comeback.
But that void needs to be filled in a very specific way, keeping in mind the safety and security of civilians. It’s not just a matter of control. It is also a question of justice and sustenance. For example, the U.S. Army’s Commander’s Handbook on Land Warfare is very clear: If the U.S. is an occupying power, it must provide food and clean water. Law and order must be provided. We cannot leave civilians to fend for themselves.
In fact, that was the central failure of the first phase of the Iraq war. Our military, like the Israeli military, has proven to be amazingly lethal and effective in urban warfare. But we were powerless to maintain civil society and the rule of law. The hunger and thirst of Iraqis was not as newsworthy as the plight of Gaza today. However, they experienced anarchy, and that anarchy nearly cost America the war. We sought a quick victory, but ended up embroiled in one of the longest conflicts.
Worse, its anarchy may represent the most serious violation of the laws of war during the entire conflict. While scandals such as the mistaken bombing at Abu Ghraib, tragic accidents, and prisoner abuse have undermined the U.S. military’s efforts, U.S. combat operations have generally been precise and focused, often meeting the requirements of the laws of armed conflict. exceeded.
But our first occupation was a disaster, and that disaster not only laid the foundation for the years of war that followed. It also means that we have failed to honor our legal obligations to those who were temporarily under our jurisdiction and control.
The U.S. military turned the tide on this surge by adopting a fundamentally different approach. Our slogan was “Protect the people.” When we engaged in offensive operations, we did not attack and immediately move, we attacked and stayed. We made sure our families were safe, our food supplies were secure, and our markets could reopen. We put ourselves in the middle of cities, towns, and rural areas until we were sure there was no power vacuum left to fill. It was hard, dangerous, and time-consuming, but it worked.
But discussing the obligations of the occupying power brings up aspects of the Gaza war that no one wants to accept. Too many on the American right labor under the illusion that war can and should be deadly, decisive, and swift. Donald Trump complained Thursday that Israel is “losing the PR war” in a meeting with Hugh Hewitt. And what was his solution? Israel “must finish what they started, and they must finish quickly, and we must get on with our lives.”
Republicans who support this rhetoric are showing they have learned nothing. Even if you say, “Let’s finish this quickly,” it never ends. Leave bodies behind, create piles of rubble, and the enemy rejoices. All you did with this “quick” victory was show the local population both a lack of regard for their lives and a lack of will to truly defeat the enemy. Hamas will crawl out of the tunnel and take control of Gaza again.
To even begin to discuss the obligations of occupation raises a completely different set of objections. Isn’t occupation the cause of conflict? Wouldn’t direct Israeli rule only exacerbate the wounds that caused the conflict in the first place? But there is a difference between forces that abide by the laws of war through the temporary provision of humanitarian aid and civil rights and forces that defy them through conquest and settlement.
That’s why the Biden administration’s approach so far is so much better than the Trump administration’s. The latter approach, which emphasizes quick fights and quick conclusions, is actually very harmful. It is a formula that results in untold human suffering and ultimate military defeat. While there are some concerns about the details of the Biden administration’s approach, the administration’s direction in providing military aid while applying relentless pressure to ramp up humanitarian efforts is good. It is much closer to current military, legal and moral needs.
In fact, Biden’s approach is paying off. Israel reopened a key border crossing after he reportedly threatened to condition future military aid on specific Israeli steps to support Palestinian civilians. That’s the way forward. While helping civilians wherever possible, we will also provide Israel with the weapons it needs to defeat Hamas and prevent a full-scale firefight with Hezbollah and Iran.
Six months after the war began, we cannot forget the direct causes of the war. Hamas’s slaughter of Israeli civilians means that Israel has both a legal right and a moral obligation to end Hamas’ control over its own people and destroy its effectiveness as a fighting force. Hamas continues to hold Israeli hostages and reportedly rejected his bid for a second ceasefire and hostage release back in February.
While there remains a moral imperative to destroy Hamas, we believe that defeating Hamas in combat violates the legal and moral obligations of the large-scale humanitarian effort to feed and protect Gaza’s civilian population. is a big mistake. In fact, the two goals are closely related. If either fails, Israel could ultimately face its most severe defeat.
