Are the Israeli Bombings of Gaza Justified?

First off, I’m well aware that this is a gray area. Few people would dispute the right of a country to counter attack when under fire. While it’s true that Israel’s Iron Dome defense system is the most efficient in the world and stops a stunning 90% of rockets launched from Gaza, it can’t just sit back and take it. Israeli bombings are one way of retaliation. Principle aside, you don’t just defend and wait for the enemy to get better and find new ways to screw you over. So let’s get that out of the way. The question is “How much”?

How Much is Too Much?

According to independent UN reports, 75% of casualties are civilians including children. For a moment, let’s ignore the heartrending pictures of innocents that have spread throughout the social media. Even if Israel’s retaliation was extremely mild, there would still be innocent casualties. Look at the statistics instead.

There is one set of people, including a certain gleeful right wing segment in India, who support Israel without hesitation. They bring up the same points I did in my first paragraph. That Israel has the right to retaliate. But completely skip the next question – to what extent? Listening to them, you would think that Israel has the right to retaliate to any degree. That if tomorrow they decided to drop a tactical nuke to wipe out all of Gaza, it would still be justified. Because…defense!

Much of the glee behind the support of unlimited Israeli bombings stems from a fierce dislike of Muslims and Islam in general. It’s hard to miss. The discussion invariably turns to India and Pakistan and how they wish India had the “guts” to respond to Pakistan the way Israel is responding to Palestine. They ignores the fact that Pakistan is not only a much more formidable adversary, they have the trump card of nuclear weapons. If Israel had Pakistan as a neighbor, they would be doing exactly what India is doing. It’s easy to bully a country that has limited military strength. Try that with a nuclear state and you’re an idiot.

But back to the main question – are there no limits to how many innocents die in the pursuit of terrorists? Clearly right now Israel thinks a 1:4 ratio of terrorists to civilians is fine. How far are they willing to go? 1:10? 1:100? Would Israel be willing to kill a hundred civilians to get one terrorist?

Obviously there has to be a line. Or you just throw up your hands and say there is no line. In while case, just nuke the whole country and be done with it. I’m genuinely interested in knowing where the supporters of Israeli bombing fall on this issue. Do they feel all bets are off, or do they yet believe that Israel must have some restraint? If so, what is the magical number? So far a 75% innocent casualty rate doesn’t make them blanch. So what number will?

Israeli Bombings Create the Next Generation of Terrorists

Right now at this very moment, there are thousands of innocent people whose lives have been ruined due to Israel. They’ve lost their family, and their homes. Children whose parents have been killed are not going to be bothered with Israel’s justifications. I don’t think I would have the moral rectitude to calmly look at the political situation and say “Oh well, I guess Israel had no choice. I know my parents were killed for no fault of theirs, but…that’s what happens in war!” Screw that. I will probably grow up with thoughts of revenge. And a feeling of persecution which will not be unjustified.

Forget the history of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. At this point no one gives a crap. When your life is ruined out of nowhere, you’re not in a position to sit and wonder who’s in the right and who’s in the wrong. As far as you’re concerned, Israeli bombings have condemned you to a life of misery.

The very best that Israel can hope for is that these people do not grow up to be full fledged terrorists. But they will always retain hate in their hearts for Israel. And with a 75% civilian casualty rate, there’s a lot of hate going around. The only way to avoid it now is if Israel simply wipes out all of Gaza. And maybe that’s what many people want.

What do you think of this post?
  • Don't Agree but Interesting (2)
  • Agree (0)
  • You're an asshole (0)

29 thoughts on “Are the Israeli Bombings of Gaza Justified?”

  1. I am NOT justifying the killing of 75% Palestinian civilians. But WHY OH WHY were three young Israeli youth captured and killed in the West Bank, especially when they know that Israel is not a paper tiger…they will defend their right to live..to the hilt, after what happened to them during the holocaust. 6 million or was it 60 million, swatted out like we swat mosquitoes…

    Reply

    • In reply to tp

      The whys and whens and who started what are all irrelevant now. Each day the story of violence starts anew. Innocent people who are killed today don’t care about the justifications and their family members are not going to forgive and forget.

      Good luck dealing with the next few thousand terrorists who grow up a decade from today.

      Reply

  2. War is never good and there can be no limits to the harm that one does to each other in times of war. We need to understand the importance of peace and it needs to be promoted by. otherwise all the world will destroy itself and there will be nothing left in the end. the insanity of war must be stopped.

    Reply

  3. I will respond to a number of points that you raised, in no particular order.

    1. Israel has worse neighbours than Pakistan, and many of them. It dealt with them differently. It pro-actively identified the risks and eliminated them. Iraq and Syria had nuclear weapons programmes that were destroyed by Israel.
    A short anecdote: In May 1998 when Pakistan was preparing for its nuclear tests, it deployed missiles around the Chagai test site. It was reported that this was to deter an Israeli air-strike, and not an Indian attack.
    In short, had Pakistan been Israel’s neighbour, it is likely that it would not have a nuclear programme today.

    2. It is not given that the new generation would grow up to become terrorists.The Allies bombed Germany and Japan to bits in WW2. The dstruction there would make the current conflict in Gaza unworthy of a footnote. However the post WW2 generation in the Axis countries remained friendly with those in the Allied countries. There are many other such examples. I do not have a sociological explanation of this, but i just hope that it does not require a total victory of the scale of WW2.
    Also, for every 100 terrorists ther might be one Claus von Stauffenberg born … and that alone will alter the balance in Gaza.

    3. Israel puts a very high price/value on the life of its citizens. They have earlier released more than a thousand Palestinian prisoners for a single Israeli hostage. So it is a not surprising that they have a different sense of “proportion”.
    IDF warns civilians in Gaza using several methods before striking. If the warnings are ignored, it should not be held responsible for the subsequent results.
    Also i think you fundamentally misunderstand this onflict if you think Israel is doing this to “kill terrorists”. Israel does not want or need to move into Gaza to kill Hamas foot soldiers. It has other means of dealing with high value targets, as the case of Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh demonstrates. This attack is one on terrorist infrastructure, and since most of them have been constructed underneath civilian homes, it is impossible not to target them.

    Reply

    • In reply to Tirthankar Dubey

      I think the atrocities committed by Nazi Germany were so horrific that the German people were shamed into it. They retain that shame till this date. The Israel-Palestine conflict has two sides, both of whom think they’re righteous. I seriously doubt Palestinians today will forgive Israel for what’s happening.

      Whether or not Pakistan would have been able to obtain nuclear weapons is debatable with Israel next to them. But the fact is that today they already have them. I’m pretty sure Israel would never be able to bully today’s Pakistan the way it’s bullying Israel.

      I’m also given to understand that Hamas actively prevents citizens from leaving bombing zones. I don’t think its fair to classify such individuals as combatants.

      Reply

    • In reply to Tirthankar Dubey

      1) Yes, except Iraq and Syria were not important Non-NATO allies of US helping them fight against USSR or an all-weather friend of China. I agree what Israel did was very proactive and courageous and probably Indian leaders would not have had the courage or the capability to do the same. But the circumstances were entirely different. I agree with Bhagwad that if Israel had found itself next to a nuclearized Pakistan, they would have been forced to tone down their responses drastically. Regarding your anecdote about 1998, it was just a false smokescreen by Pakistan to conduct the nuclear tests. Strobe Talbott (the Deputy Secretary of State at the time) has confirmed in his book that this was just an excuse by Pakistan and had no basis in reality.
      2) Again the circumstances are different. Germany did not have a widespread terrorist infrastructure waiting to take advantage of the German people’s resentment against the Allies. Nazism was a localized phenomenon (in spite of its supporters in UK and US). Terrorism is not a localized phenomenon. In this case, Hamas (and their backers in Saudi Arabia and Iran) will already be trolling for new recruits among the people affected. I’m not saying that the blame for this should be laid completely at Israel’s feet. But this should be a factor in their considerations. They are not going to succeed in their goal of destroying terrorist infrastructure by creating new terrorists.
      3) Really?? If the civilians do not heed the IDF warnings, they forfeit their lives? So Israel indiscriminately kills unarmed people simply for being in the way? How is this different from actual terrorists like Hamas? They have Hamas blockaded within 139 square miles and they cannot think of a way to neutralize Hamas without such massive civilian casualties?
      Israel has a right to defend itself. But when 75% of the people killed are unarmed civilians, Israel can longer claim to be just defending itself. It is seen as a cruel aggressor and no amount of rationalization will make it go away.

      Reply

      • In reply to Satish

        1) The “major non-NATO ally” designation was absent in 1981, when Operation Opera was conducted. Otherwise it wouldn’t have been surprising had Iraq been designated as an important ally of the US as they were one then. US was whole-heartedly supporting Iraq at that point in its ongoing war against Iran.
        Syria is one of the most important Russian allies, and the location of its only military base outside the former USSR. Russia can go to great lengths to protect Syria, as it demonstrated in 2013.
        So both the countries had very important backers at the time of the attacks by Israel.
        I don’t understand why both of you are nitpicking on this. I have never said that Israel would be able to bully a nuclear Pakistan … i agree with you that it wouldn’t. My point is that if Pakistan were its neighbour, Israel wouldn’t allow the development of a Pakistani nuclear programme.

        2) I mentioned Germany as one of many examples. Consider UK and India (or France and Algeria or USA and Vietnam). During its occupation of India, UK committed far more atrocities on India than the Israel has done in Gaza. But not many Indians hate UK today (or hate enough to do something about it). My point here is that whether the animosity remains depends totally on the path the political process takes in the future. There have been many situations where the public attitude has changed, and rather quickly. So while it is likely that Israel’s actions will be an effective recruiting tool for Hamas in the long term, that is by no means certain.

        3) War is not neat, and as much as the UN would like us to believe otherwise, it cannot be fought merely between militaries, leaving the civilians unaffected and able to carry on with their lives. The Indian army had Bhindranwale confined to a few acres in Amritsar in 1984 and yet it cost 500 civilian lives (best estimate) to secure the complex. When NATO bombed Kosovo in 1999, similar number of civilians were killed. Gaza has a population density which is 30 times more than Kosovo. In urban warfare, civilian casualties are inevitable.
        Please think before saying that Israel kills civilians indiscriminately. If it wanted to do that, it would be much more effective at it (Assad and ISIS have killed more in a single day).
        “How is this different from actual terrorists like Hamas?”
        I will spell it out as clearly as possible. What does Israel demand from Hamas ? A recognition of Israel’s right to exist. What does Hamas want from Israel ? That all Jews leave Israel (and i am being charitable here). Assuming that one wants Israel to continue existing, Israel does not have a choice … it cannot give Hamas what it wants. Hamas has the choice here … if it decides wisely, the bloodshed will stop.

        Reply

  4. And with a 75% civilian casualty rate, there’s a lot of hate going around. The only way around it now is if Israel simply wipes out all of Gaza. And maybe that’s what many people want.

    That is what ultimately what Israel wants. When they’re not bombing Palestinians they’re trying to force them off their land through settlements. So this whole thing is more than Israel’s right to defend itself, they simply want them gone. Israel is committing genocide, and people are dressing that up in “they’re just defending themselves.

    I do agree with you about creating more terrorists and I think Israels knows this. If Hamas is gone, then another group will come in it’s place.

    Reply

    • In reply to RenKiss

      From what I understand, neither side’s hands are clean. It seems that Hamas has been launching rockets into Israel on a constant basis for years – otherwise there would be no need for an “Iron Dome” project in the first place.

      I question only the magnitude of the response. At what point do they say “Enough is enough”?

      Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        I’m definitely not condoning Hamas. They do have blood on their hands. But for, Israel enough will be enough when Gaza and the Palestinians are gone. So that’s my answer to your question.

        Reply

    • In reply to RenKiss

      I disagree with your assessment.
      Settlements have always been negotiating levers for Israel. When Israel and Egypt concluded their peace treaty, Israel withdrew all its settlers from Sinai. I am not saying that Israel will withdraw its settlers from the West Bank. However a land swap has always been on the cards. There are other bigger reasons why the peace process is stalled … not settlements.
      If Israel really wanted to drive away the Palestinians, they would leave an exit open for them to leave, and if they wanted to kill them all, as a powerful military, i am sure that they would be better at it. So i am unsure whether your reply was serious or sarcastic.
      As an aside, i believe that we shouldn’t frivolously brandish the word “genocide”. Within a few years there will be no living memory of the holocaust. Children then will not be able to appreciate the evil humanity is capable of if we brush all military activities with the same brush.

      Reply

  5. Hi Bhagvad:
    I agree with what you say in this article. (I am your relative btw–your mom will explain who I am!) RenKiss is completely correct when s/he says: “So this whole thing is more than Israel’s right to defend itself, they simply want them gone. Israel is committing genocide, and people are dressing that up in “they’re just defending themselves.” TP: while the kidnappings were just plain wrong, an innocent Palestinian man was burnt to death for them. While that itself cannot be condoned, it is more understandable than this wholesale slaughter. You cannot compare the killing of over one thousand people by a nation state, a member of the UN, to the killing of three people by a splinter group that is not under any official control. Bhagvad is right when he says that this will only create more hatred and breed more terrorists. The people of Gaza have nowhere to run and nowhere to hide. Would you please, TP, try to imagine putting your children to bed not knowing whether they will be there in the morning? Israel is behaving like the worst type of fascist state. They are using collective punishment and other methods that were used agains them by the Nazis. As Jon Snow indicates, “Were any other country doing what is being done in Gaza, there would be a worldwide uproar.” As to their talking points? Please read this piece: http://www.thenation.com/article/180783/five-israeli-talking-points-gaza-debunked

    Reply

    • In reply to Rashna Singh

      “Were any other country doing what is being done in Gaza, there would be a worldwide uproar.”

      Are you serious ? There is a worldwide uproar only because of the Israeli involvement. This operation has been on for three weeks now. In the Syrian civil war next door more than 4000 people are killed on an average in three week periods, which is four times the number of casualties in Gaza. Do you see similar media coverage ? What about northern Iraq ? Its not fashionable to report on that when one could concentrate on Israel.
      But whether or not there is an uproar is irrelevant. Let’s focus on the talking points post that you linked to.
      (1) and (2) are interlinked. It is preposterous to say that Israel continues to occupy Gaza since it controls its own borders. No country has an obligation to keep its borders open. By that argument India also occupies Bhutan … India even controls the foreign affairs for it. But no, Bhutan is not under occupation. The lesson is if you have a border with only a few nations, you should try to be friendly with them. People forget that the “blockade” is a joint one by Israel and Egypt. Hamas has managed to antagonise them both.
      When Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, philanthropists from all over the world pitched in and provided millions of dollars worth of resources to the Palestinian authority, which were promptly plundered. Then a group took over which has the destruction of Israel as a goal in its charter. Is it too much to ask for that the group you are negotiating with recognises your right to exist ? Note that although Hamas did win the elections in 2006, there hasn’t been an election ever since. How many “democratic countries” have such long terms ?

      (3) … This is also a blatantly false representation of the data. I have followed this situation for several years now. After every operation, the ability of Hamas to fire rockets is greatly diminished and hence the firings come to a halt. Over the following months and years they rebuild the capability and start firing, a few at a time and then increases the frequency. Israel usually takes the first blows and after some time launches a new military offensive, during which obviously the rocket attacks are ramped up until the infrastructure is destroyed again.

      (4) Israel aims to avoid civilian casualties. Israel warns civilians using a number of different methods. I don’t know of any other war where the aggressor has provided so much warning to the civilian population. I believe that it is legitimate to consider all those who don’t heed the warnings to be combatants.

      (5) I have heard allegations from both sides on this.
      However i would argue that it is easy to take the moral high ground when you are not in conflict. Hague hasn’t seen a war in decades and so it is easy to say that one must presume that civilian objects are not being used for military purposes. But as all governments, including India’s, who have dealt with terrorism know, that is not practical.

      “try to imagine putting your children to bed not knowing whether they will be there in the morning?”

      This is true for Israeli families too … all over the South.
      Besides, the tunnel construction did not work out well for Palestinian kids … 160 dies while working on them … but surely that is also Israel’s fault.

      http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/180400/hamas-killed-160-palestinian-children-to-build-terror-tunnels#undefined

      Reply

  6. There are 2 questions here
    (1) Are Jews/Arabs justified on their stand and
    (2) Are their actions justified despite their stand., (i.e How much is too much?)

    The first question is impossible to answer without a bias. It is like a bad marriage. We all can argue on who is right and when someone has crossed the line. What an outsider feels is irrelevant (unless it is a court), and the couple would fight irrespective. Even the best husband/wife, at times would’ve had some instances of bad behavior. And every first-provocation has a precursor, with Arabs going back 700 years of occupancy, and Jews going back a 2000.

    The second question is far more actionable. A fight between a couple never stops with an offensive. It will never end if both parties continue to have their last-word. Someone has to quit for the next day. The wisdom of Indian Independence struggle has loads of advice to offer, and I think can never be overstated. Challenge the reason, not the ego of your opponent.

    In a war for survival, though, there are no half measures.

    “agni shesham RuNa shesham shatrushesham tataiva ca
    punaH punaH pravardhEt tasmAt shesham na kaarayEt”

    (A small fire, loan or enemy, if left to exist, will continue to prosper (increase). Leave no balance).

    To prosper together, violence can never get us closer to a solution
    To survive alone, never leave a trace of the enemy.

    Reply

  7. I have never been to that area before and am unfamiliar with the politics, but I do watch the news and I am consistently confused by what is really going on. Yesterday I saw the news and it said that Israel had bombed a UN refugee center where there were women and children. Today I turned on the news and the Israeli government official was saying that Israel was justified in that bombing because there were terrorists there.
    I think the bottom line is – killing children is absolutely WRONG….there is no excuse. It is inexcusable.

    Reply

  8. Brother, before asking the question on whether Israel bombing Gaza killing ~1400 is justified, first try to ask yourself why you didn’t feel the need to worry about the 150,000 killed in the Syrian civil war? And not just you, almost everyone on social media who is worried sick about Gaza has barely spoken on the Syrian civil war.

    Secondly, think about it. 55 Israeli soldiers have also died in the conflict. That’s not nothing. Now remind yourself that military service is compulsory in Israel. This means literally every man woman and child in Israel has a near and dear relative or friend (probably several near relatives and friends) going to war.

    And despite this, the support for the war in Israel stands at 85-90%!!! Can you imagine your parents approving of unnecessary war if you yourself had to take a gun and go fight on the Pakistan border? But 85-90% support means almost every Israeli father and mother is saying yes to the war even though their own son is fighting it. No, not as a remote possibility. Their parents are supporting the war even as their own son is literally fighting in it. Right now.

    Can you imagine how desperately angry they must be? Israel has decided not to take it any more. And we as Indians can understand that sentiment fully.

    Reply

Leave a Comment