Almost immediately after Hamas launched its brutal set of terrorist attacks in Israel on October 7, it became clear that the Israel Defense Forces would respond militarily. Initially that response came in the form of airstrikes, but it appears likely that a ground campaign will follow. In either case, however, the heavily urban terrain poses major challenges for the Israel Defense Forces. In such areas, compliance with the law of armed conflict and international humanitarian law is paramount.
To understand both those challenges and the specific measures Israeli forces have adopted to ensure their operations maximize protection of civilian populations, John Spencer is joined on this episode of the Urban Warfare Project Podcast by Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus. A spokesman for the Israel Defense Forces, he describes these measures—including steps unique to the Israeli military—and the broader effort to minimize incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, and damage to civilian property in urban warfare.
You can listen to the discussion below or find the episode on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Spotify, TuneIn, or your favorite podcast app. Be sure to subscribe, and if you’re enjoying the Urban Warfare Project Podcast, please take a minute and leave the podcast a review or give it a rating!
Image credit: Israel Defense Forces
While I can appreciate the laws of war for what they are, ultimately they are regulation by fiat. When the aggressors refuse to play by the same rules, limiting oneself to some polite fiction of how wars ought to be fought ultimately compromises decisive results.
I’m hardly suggesting Israel start targeting Gaza civilians in some kind of sick quid pro quo, but doing what’s necessary to effectively end the threat posed by Hamas is hamstrung by arbitrary restraint. It’s a time for brutal results, not one for emotional second-guessing. Collateral damage sucks, but it’s a reality of real war.
Anything short of a decisive approach, no matter how heartless it may seem in the short-term, simply exacerbates the long-term suffering. Maintain the siege. Destroy Hamas and end Gaza’s existence as an autonomous exclave. Do all you can to preserve innocent life save compromising your objectives. Care for and thoroughly vet those who remain. Offer them the choice: law-abiding Israeli citizenship (and all the rights and protections that come with it) or transport to the West Bank (or any nation willing to take them). Be professional, but be decisive. Fighting a polite war hasn’t worked.
These terrorists are just like the terrorists before them – they don't care about anything or anyone else but what they think is important. Violence in an extreme is fine if it obtains your objective.
Hamas is so much like the Viet Cong that it would be uncanny if it weren't for the fact that terrorists follow a long list of other groups from the historical past. Rape, torture, hangings, castration, and the use of flame throwers were among the tools the VC would use.
During Vietnam, according to the colonel who accepted the surrender of the South Vietnamese in 1975, the anti-war movement "was essential to our strategy" And, "America lost because of its democracy, through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win."
The VC never abided by a truce and there is no reason to think Hamas will ever, either.
God be with you, Israel.
He, literally, is.
Obviously the Laws of War need to be changed. The question is, “by whom?” Not the Red Cross, the Ukrainians at war don’t trust them. For good reason. Not you. Not the US. The only nation to use nuclear weapons of mass destruction. Not by the body of people who initiated current law. Because you see, they were made to justify what any person with a deep sense of humanity can see are crimes against humanity. So who should change the laws of warfare? Perhaps Quakers. Perhaps Liberation theologist. Perhaps former Draft dodgers. Perhaps Palestinians. By the way, I noticed you failed to mention the IDFs penchant to assassinate journalist. They are a casualty of IDF’s narrative control.
Laws, outside of those of physics and, arguably, God, are a polite fiction once the political will of one’s enemies has reached the point of existential gamble.
What matters now is smart strategy backed by effective operations. Targeting innocent civilians in turn is not only morally repugnant to professional soldiers, it is a self-defeating message to those who would otherwise not commit to being your enemy. Collateral damage can have a similarly pyrrhic effect and steps must be taken to minimize it – but not to the detriment of legitimate goals. The line should be determined by the hard calculus of efficient warfare, not because the U.S. President is worried about his next term. Let the rest of the world look at the Israeli government with disdain, if that is the necessary cost of ridding the world of those who would cause actual harm to her citizens.
With this comments section we have reached a level of Boomer heretofore unimaginable. How would you react if someone waltzes into your house, plops down on your couch and tells you “You will leave before we do,” and proceeds to hold you and your family hostage, compartmentalizing you to your various rooms and tormenting you in attempts to get you to leave your home?
I would be interested to hear your views now – in March – with over 30,000 killed, 5% population injured or killed, numerous accounts of armed quadcopter drones shooting civilians, the incident with the child Hind, the number of large bombs dropped on residential buildings housing families and daily accounts of shooting and shelling of people meeting aid trucks. Have you updated your view on how the IOF is conducting the war? How about first person accounts of mistreatment of civilians detained? Extrajudicial killing? Using starvation as a pressure tactic? I look forward to your response.