After this is all over, and in five months, in two years, or in 10 years time, we will have to look back at ourselves and ask what part we played in the violent events of 2023?
Did we incite violence indiscriminately?
Did we speak out of hatred?
Did we listen to the victims whose families and homes were forever lost?
Did we abandon our morals for vengeance?
The pogrom of October 7, 2023 wrought unspeakable tragedy to thousands. The graphic and despicable violence will need to be processed for decades to come.
Entire villages were destroyed. Families were tortured and slaughtered. Children were abducted. I do not need to elaborate on the atrocities – they will stay with us for generations.
The enemy here is clear: a terrorist organization, operating with no humanity and slaughtering the elderly and the young with a special kind of cruelty.
Is Israel being overly cruel with its response to Hamas in Gaza?
But are we, in response, attacking the enemy? On October 10, Israel declared a complete siege over the Gaza Strip. Over two million civilians live there now with no access to food, water, electricity, or humanitarian aid. Israel’s own almost 200 hostages are in captivity there. Many of the attacks seem to disregard how many civilians will be harmed. Hamas should indeed be attacked – destroyed, obliterated – no doubt, but what of the innocents?
We may wonder how we can respond and effectively promise security for our people, who are deeply suffering and in need of relief and support.
How can we act for security, through violence, but without causing unnecessary suffering for the very real and innocent civilians affected?
International humanitarian law is a legal framework that guides us through the hugely complex and painful situations of armed conflict. There are several main principles that act as guidelines.
The first is distinction between combatants and civilians, between military objects and civilian objects. An attacker must distinguish between the two – and aim their attack only at the former.
The second principle is proportionality: The military advantage obtained in an attack must not incur a disproportionate, or excessive, amount of civilian damage.
The third principle is called precaution, and it obligates the attacker to take all necessary precautions to prevent damage to civilians and civilian objects.
The fourth and final main principle is aptly called the principle of humanity – and it forbids the infliction of suffering or destruction not absolutely necessary for achieving a military aim.
These principles all provide the same key guidance. There have been and will be wars for the foreseeable future. Combatants will kill and be killed.
That in and of itself is not illegal.
But war can be fought with morality and with humanity. We can distinguish between achieving military aims and harming civilians. We can assess the civilian damage expected from an attacker and forgo it if it is indeed excessive. We can – and must – never inflict needless suffering.
It should be clear to us that if all parties abide by these rules, this can only be to everyone’s benefit: They protect loved ones, sitting in their homes, those who did not train for warfare. They protect cities, towns, schools, and hospitals from being attacked.
They also protect our own humanity from destroying others out of hatred and vengeance as opposed to for security and military necessity.
While Israel is operating with the legitimate, necessary military aim of dismantling the Hamas terror organization, the specific tactics used can and should still be questioned.
A siege that starves hundreds of thousands of civilians is illegal; forbidding medical aid is illegal; evacuating over one million civilians without humanitarian resources is illegal; indiscriminate attacks and those that cause a disproportionate number of civilian deaths is illegal; collective punishment is illegal.
Of course, Hamas has committed heinous war crimes – years of indiscriminate rocket fire towards the civilian population of Israel and now slaughtering families in their homes, abducting children, mass attacks at a civilian party, torturing the remains of those killed and more.
But one war crime does not justify another. Humanitarian law tells us that we may experience the desire for vengeance; even bloodthirst. Those feelings are human and they are valid, but we cannot let them lead us in war.
We must fight within the wide parameters the law gives us, acknowledge civilians and offer them basic protection.
Over the past year and more, incitement to violence has become commonplace political rhetoric. Jewish supremacist values have been normalized. The concept of rule of law has been mocked and twisted by the so-called judicial reform. Hundreds of thousands of Israelis have protested on the streets every weekend for more than nine months – asking the government: Please do not take away our democratic values.
This issue is no different.
We can want war – we are hurting. But we can want a war that is just, that is fought within the parameters of the law and that respects the human life of the innocent.
We are the people of Israel. This week we have cried together, held each other, called out in justified anger and looked for an answer.
I do not know what the answer is.
However, the rules of humanitarian law offer us a framework – when war comes your way, fight. Defend yourselves and your land. Your civilians’ lives matter. But do so with a just hand.
Do not use cruelty for the sake of cruelty. Consider the families on the other side – those who are innocent and deserving of respect, just as we are.
Let’s not allow the government to take us where humanity should never go.
The writer is an Israeli lawyer specializing in international human rights and humanitarian law.