The Importance of Using Human Shields to Evade Human-Shield Violation: A Critical Evaluation for a Just War

Noncombatant distinction is another major criterion for a just war. Civilians shouldn’t be targeted. Israel can rightly claim that its ground invasion helps Israeli forces better distinguish Hamas fighters from civilians. Israel accepts the risk that a soldier could be sent to destroy Hamas. The extensive labyrinth of tunnels holding hostages needs to be searched and sealed off. But engaging in urban warfare is exceedingly difficult and leads to soldiers killing civilians, especially as Hamas fighters hide among the population. The ethics of using force to overcome the use of human shields is a topic that is debated among international human rights lawyers but can be examined during future trials of Israeli and Hamas fighters.

The standard elements used to assess if a war is really just are cause, right intent, legitimate authority, net benefit or likelihood of success. The case can still be made for a just war even if some of the criteria are weak.

The perception that Israel fails to meet standards could have major practical effects, for example damaging Israel’s diplomatic standing and trade and the world economy, as well as bolstering support for its enemies. If Israel is widely seen to have committed war crimes, a trial could be held at the International Criminal Court in The Hague — though Israel does not recognize its jurisdiction — or Israeli soldiers could be arrested and tried in any of the nations that have adopted universal jurisdiction to prosecute such crimes.

The government of Israel is capable of having legitimate authority. The government was democratically elected, even if Mr. Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition has sought to undermine the checks and balances provided by the Israeli judiciary.

The Gaza Conflict: The Costs of Left-Right Relations and Israel’s Right-Hand Taking Care of Humanitarian Needs

The criterion of net benefit, weighing the gain against the harm, would include the potential gain of removing Hamas from power or at least neutralizing its capacity to attack Israel in the short term. The war might give the Palestinians new opportunities to govern Gaza and eventually free and fair elections. Israel might also be able to rescue the hostages held by Hamas. The enormous loss of Palestinian lives will create intergenerational rage against Israel, and cause recruitment for extremists. If Hamas is disarmed and loses control of Gaza, more groups will likely spring up.

There is a risk of a wider war with Lebanon and Syria being involved, and violence in the West Bank. Damage to Israel’s foreign relations is also likely: the suspension of peace talks with Saudi Arabia and possible withdrawals from the Abraham Accords, which Israel recently signed with certain Arab states with the goal of normalizing relations.

Even as the international community is critical of the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip, Israel has been vague about who might administer it if Hamas is ousted. According to health officials, more than 11,000 people have been murdered in the Gaza Strip since October 7.

Netanyahu has now made it known that he won’t agree to the Palestinian Authority handling civilians in Gaza unless it changes its behavior. Mr. Abbas has made it clear that he will not agree to the Palestinian Authority if it does not condemn the assault against Israel.

The war was prompted by a cross-border assault by Hamas on Oct. 7 in which an estimated 1,200 people were killed and about 240 more were taken as hostages to Gaza, according to Israeli officials. Israel’s stated goals for the war are to dismantle Hamas’s military strength and ability to rule Gaza, as well as to bring the hostages back home.

Asked about a potential hostage deal, Mr. Netanyahu told Meet the Press there “could be” one, but added, “The less I say about it, the more I’ve increased the chances that it materializes.” Israeli representatives have been in talks with other people.

Netanyahu pointed to the teaching of hatred to children and monetary payments to attackers in attacks against Israelis as well as the lack of condemnation.

“The massacre of Oct. 7 proved once and for all that in every place that Israel does not have security control, terrorism entrenches itself,” Mr. Netanyahu said on Saturday. “In the end it comes back to hit us, and that is also true of Judea and Samaria,” he added, referring to the West Bank by its biblical names.

Establishing an independent Palestinian state in those areas is what will achieve stability, said the Mr Abu Rudeineh.

The view in the Israeli government is that so long as Mr. Abbas has not directly condemned Hamas for the Oct. 7 attacks, any agreement to install his authority in Gaza as a replacement for the group would make Mr. Netanyahu look weak in the eyes of many Israelis, according to an Israeli government official who was not authorized to speak openly about internal discussions.

Perhaps Mr. Biden’s hug will give him cover to push for a two-state solution. Mr. Biden does not think there will be a return to the prewar status quo. The Secretary of State is calling for the Palestinians to govern the Gaza Strip after Israeli forces leave. That assumes Israel would sooner pull out than pay the price the Palestinian Authority would demand: serious progress toward a Palestinian state. To have any odds of success, the United States will have to threaten to reduce military assistance and political support and act accordingly. Israel will conclude that the U.S. talk is just that.

The suburb of Detroit has played host to several vigils where war victims from Israel and Hamas are remembered.

The Israel- Hamas war has been the focus of arguments in American politics since the attack on Israel. She was elected in the year of her family’s living in the West Bank so she’s been leading the fight for Palestinian rights.

At a gathering in solidarity with Israeli hostages last week at Adat Shalom synagogue, Jeremy Moss, a Democratic state senator from Southfield, a suburb with a large Jewish population in Ms. Tlaib’s district, spoke with concerned constituents. “I had so many people coming up to me saying that they don’t feel seen, heard, represented,” he said.

Tlaib was censured by her members for introducing a resolution opposing the slave trade, and Khalid Turaani compared it to that of Joshua Reed Giddings, who was censured by his House colleagues for opposing the slave trade.

This year, thanks to a redistricting shake-up, she began representing one of the largest Arab American communities in the country, as well as parts of the largest Jewish community in the Detroit area. The war has made it extremely difficult for her to represent both the personal and the professional perspectives of the conflict.

The challenge for a politician would be the divide. It could not bebridged for Ms. Tlaib, who has staked out a position that is unpopular with many of her supporters.

On Tuesday, 22 of Ms. Tlaib’s Democratic colleagues joined House Republicans in passing a resolution to censure her and accusing her of “calling for the destruction of the state of Israel.” Mark Mellman is the leader of Democratic Majority for Israel, and he is running ads in the Detroit area that criticize Tlaib.

She posted a video on social media in November accusing President Biden of supporting the “genocide of the Palestinian people”, as well as showing footage of protesters chanting “From the river to the sea” with a pro-Palestinian slogan.

Ms. Tlaib has said she saw it as “an aspirational call for freedom, human rights and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction or hate.” She pledged after the vote to continue to work for a just and lasting peace that guarantees the human rights of all people, centers peaceful coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians, and ensures no child has to suffer or live in fear of violence.

Ms Tlaib defended the slogan, despite condemnation from the Biden administration, Michigan’s attorney general, and the governor.

Mr. Mellman believed that Congresswoman Tlaib was out of step with Democrats in Michigan, as well as with her colleagues in Congress. We hope she will change her views, but we might be interested in running against her.