Israel must invade Gaza. Which makes doing more for Gaza's civilians essential.
Israel can no longer live next door to an enclave governed by a force that spent two years planning the mass wanton slaughter of families in their beds, of children in their schools, of youth gathered to enjoy music, and of defenseless elders. Those who now run Gaza set as their goal to murder of as many Jews as possible. They then acted to realize that goal. They can no more be counted on to undergo a future change of heart than Hitler could have been at any point during World War II It is not possible for Israel to coexist now with Hamas under any circumstances. And to eradicate Hamas, Israel must conduct a land invasion of Gaza.
Any honest discussion of the war underway between Israel and Hamas in Gaza must begin by acknowledging that reality. Innocent Palestinian civilians will die when Israel invades Gaza. Virtually every invasion staged in modern times begins with extensive bombing and shelling of the area about to be invaded. Innocent civilians always die during the extensive bombing and shelling of cities. Some options can lessen the loss of innocent lives inside Gaza. But each of those options, to varying degrees, would likely increase Israeli military losses during an invasion. In warfare it is too often the case that he who hesitates is shot, and invaders rarely exercise restraint.
Israel wants to minimize their total loss of lives during the pending invasion of Gaza. Emphasizing restraint during military operations inside Gaza would cost Israeli soldiers lives that an overwhelming use of force there might instead have saved. But what cost will future Israelis have to pay to minimize combat losses today? Tens of thousands of Palestinians, with thousands of those being children, will die when Israel invades Gaza The taking of any innocent life triggers hatred. The taking of tens of thousands of innocent lives fuels a persistent escalating cycle of revenge.
In warfare much value is assigned to seizing and controlling the high ground. Israel is a very small nation, relative to others. Judaism is a very small religion, relative to others. For Israel more so than for most nations, occupying the high moral ground is a precious strategic asset. It enables Israel to rally critical support from the United States and other key nations. Abandoning that high ground would be catastrophic for the security of generations of Israelis yet to come. For Israel's own long term security, it is just as essential that it shoulder risks to protect the lives of Palestinian civilians as it is for Israelis to risk their own lives fighting inside Gaza to eradicate Hamas.
This leads to hard conclusions. For one, Israel must lift its near total siege of Gaza. Throughout world history, sieges have been an effective tool of war. They are brutal, they are unforgiving, and they often lead to victory. When a nation is fighting for its very existence, which Israel can arguably claim to be doing now, defeat is not an option. Therefor Israel laid siege to Gaza. By weakening all of Gaza through a siege, Israel does weaken its sworn enemy, Hamas. But the cost, to Israel, is too high. Not by any standard, let alone a moral yardstick, is the cost worth it to Israel.
Making the literal lives of a civilian population untenable does not further Israel's ends.. A starving population, unable to provide safe hydration for their infant young, becomes increasingly more hateful and more violent. Even if the means to inflict severe harm on those who bring death to their families is at that moment unavailable, the hate will endure until it is.
Israel can defeat Hamas without laying total siege to Hamas, though a number more of their soldiers could die as a result. Those added losses can't justify a siege of millions of civilians. Israel can arguably insist, "Release the hostages and we will lift the siege" but that lowers Israel to the same tactical level as the terrorists. Hamas won't release the hostages to save the lives of Palestinian civilians, so Israel must endanger the lives of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians as a result? Hamas committed war crimes. The collective punishment of over two million Palestinians is also a war crime, done on a larger scale.
It is almost certainly true that Hamas will appropriate some provisions that are allowed to enter Gaza for its own internal purposes. Fuel is a prime example, and to deny fuel to Hamas hampers their fighting ability That is Israel's logic. But Israeli bombings cause civilian casualties. Though some such casualties may be an inevitable byproduct of war, the inability of hospitals to provide medical treatment for innocents is not. Israel is creating civilian casualties through its actions. Israel cut off the transmission of electricity to Gaza. At the very least Israel must allow hospitals to obtain the fuel they require to function so as to save civilian lives. If Hamas appropriates that fuel away from the hospitals that need it, let that be on their heads. Allowing for that possibility is a risk that Israel must take.
Hamas is entrenched in Gaza surrounded by civilians used as human shields. Nothing that Israel can do will guarantee safety to all Palestinian civilians during its war with Hamas, and the inevitable invasion to come. Those in the South of Gaza may be safer than those in the North, but they are not safe. Palestinians have valid reason to feat that should they leave their homeland now they will never be allowed to return to it. None the less many would seek safety outside of Gaza were that available to them. Egypt has its reasons, which can be argued but none the less exist, for not wanting to take in refugees from Gaza. But Egypt is not a direct party to this war. The long term security of Israel hinges on its relationship with the people of Palestine.
I heard an Israeli professor based in Jerusalem float an idea that he acknowledged was unlikely to be under current consideration. Why not allow Palestinian refugees from Gaza to seek safety inside of Israel? He suggested that Israel take in women and children refugees only, to lessen security risks to Israel. He didn't expand on that thought further, he was calling for thinking outside of the box. Presumably Gaza refugees would be confined to refugee camps for the duration of the fighting, or perhaps after a vetting process some could move on to territory in the West Bank where the Palestinian Authority has jurisdiction. But no one would be forcibly moved to refugee camps inside of Israel, it would be voluntary only. If this isn't being considered, why not? WHY NOT? Of course it would entail risks to Israel, but are they greater than the risk engendered by Israel failing to do everything it can to lessen civilian deaths in Gaza?
There are no easy answers here. Calling for a cease fire in Gaza so that the killing will stop is not an answer. From Israel's security perspective the killing MUST continue until the threat from Hamas is eliminated. To allow Hamas to remain in power indefinitely, by freezing the conflict at its current stage, would be akin to urging Ukraine to accept a cease fire after Russia had achieved its maximum censure of Ukrainian territory. A short term cease fire in Gaza, called for a specific defined goal, such as an evacuation of civilians, can be sought and Israel should stay open to short pauses in the fighting to achieve narrowly defined humanitarian ends. But this is a war Israel can't afford to avoid having. Just like Israel can't avoid caring about the immediate fate of Gaza's civilians. Israel's security requires both.
= new reply since forum marked as read
