The Toll in Gaza and Israel
July 18, 2014
AS of yesterday, a total of 260 Palestinians had been killed in Gaza by Israeli forces. Two Israelis had been killed since the conflict began on July 8th.
See a breakdown of casualties at The New York Times.
— Comments —
Paul writes:
Yes, and if Hamas had not started its wave of rocket attacks and kidnappings, the toll would be: Gazans, 0; Israel, 0.
The odd thing is that these attacks can only strengthen the Israeli right. Had Gazans pursued a good-neighbour policy since 2005, the Israeli left would be in a strong position to say “See? Our fears have been largely groundless. Now there’s no excuse for not getting our troops out of the West Bank too”. As it is, the Israeli right can say “So where are the benefits from our withdrawal from Gaza? We’d be crazy to repeat the experiment in the West Bank”.
Since Hamas is not run by stupid people, we have to suppose that they realize this. So, why did they launch their attacks? Is it something as simple as the Islamic belief that killing Jews under any circumstances gets you your ticket to Paradise? Or is it a by-product of the struggle between Hamas and the PLO’s Abbas for Palestinian loyalties? (the winner being the one who is most ‘authentic’, i.e. least willing to maintain even a de facto peace with Israel?)
Laura writes:
The kidnapping of three people does not warrant this kind of extreme revenge and so many deaths.
T.D. writes:
How dare you question Israel. Don’t you know that it is every patriotic American’s sacred duty to fight, and if necessary, die to make the world safe for Israel? That every foreign policy discussion must begin with the question “How does it affect Israel”? That all our recent foreign policy adventures, backed by Israel and disinterested patriots like Charles Krauthammer and William Kristol, have brought stability and peace to countries such as Iraq, Libya and Egypt. Israel is our greatest ally (Sean Hannity said so) and they know how to reward their friends. Just ask the British, whose valor in WW II was repaid by a vicious terror campaign by Israeli heroes like Menachem Begin. Or the Americans, whose billions in aid has allowed Israel to liberate some of its most valuable state secrets.
And let’s not forget the needs of Jews in the West, who have pursued a policy of multiculturalism, equality and mass immigration. They will need a place to flee to when their experiments fully blossom into Third World chaos. It would be unjust to force them to lie in the bed they made, considering their contributions to academia (post-modernism and feminism), politics (multiculturalism, neoconservative warmongering), and popular culture (pornography and the denigration of tradition western archetypes). It would be the height of selfishness to place our own interests above that of a minor state in a far away land peopled by such a magnanimous, trustworthy tribe.
Paul writes:
I don’t think there’s any factual basis for the claim that Israeli counterstrikes are motivated by the desire for ‘revenge.’ They are intended to suppress the rocket fire. As you know, the rockets are launched from heavily populated civilian centres in what appears to be a human-shield policy. You may also be aware of an Islamic doctrine that says, “If a Muslim kills a Jew in battle, or is killed by a Jew, the Muslim gains immediate entrance to Paradise.” So really, from Hamas’ point of view, there is little to lose and much to gain from launching rockets from next to mosques, schools, hospitals. It now appears that Israel’s response is being broadened in order to deal with the extensive network of tunnels that Hamas uses both to smuggle in military materiel (apparently Iranian) and to send guerillas to attack Israeli soldiers, as happened the other day. My point is not that you have to approve of these tactical decisions, but only that they are indeed tactical decisions, of the same sort made by many nations at war; not out-of-control expressions of ‘revenge’ by a rabble of teeth-gnashing Shylocks.
As for your correspondent T.D., he can’t stick to the subject and goes off on a rant about American Jews’ support of feminism etc., ending with a sarcastic general swipe at “such a magnanimous, trustworthy tribe.” Lawrence Auster could, of course, be very critical of Jews (particularly Jewish liberals), but he didn’t have much patience with patent Jew-baiters like T.D., who might really be more at home at Stormfront.
Laura writes:
My purpose in this post was not to suggest that Jews are the cause of all the West’s problems, though they should share the blame for them, but to note the disproportionate loss of life in this conflict.
“Operation Protective Edge” began in response to the kidnapping of three israeli teenagers, before rockets were launched from Gaza.
Ben writes:
About the War in Gaza, you wrote, “My purpose in this post was… to note the disproportionate loss of life in this conflict.”
But if you considered the statistics for most any war, you would find a “disproportionate” number. The disparity tells you nothing of the relative justice.
“In the image of God” is not an Islamic ideal; the phrase is considered anthropomorphic and wrong. What is the implication? The deaths of Gazan children are a direct consequence of Hamas’s use of them as Allah’s pawns.
The death toll in Gaza could be far, far higher. The relative lack of deaths, as well as the saving of Israeli civilians, Jewish and otherwise, is a direct consequence of a technical prowess that comes from the Judeo-Christian ideals of natural law and the science that springs from that. No war is wholly clean, and the Israelis have every motivation, political and cultural, to minimize civilian casualties despite Hamas’s use of mosques and hospitals and playgrounds.
The kidnappings were a first stage; Hamas was ready for more and to this day thinks that the Islamic movement will benefit and that the world will come to the rescue. Do you want to be a rescuer of an unambiguously terrorist movement? I would not have thought so.
It’s one thing to say, “not America’s business,” which is defensible though probably short sighted. It’s another thing to undermine a European culture that is at constant struggle with people who, in keeping with Islamic tradition, spend their resources on demonization and aggression.
Is it not good that the war revealed the extent of the tunnels? Imagine what is happening in the mountains of Iran. The West needs to know.
Having left Gaza, an area that Egypt ruled with difficulty, the Israelis will now retake the whole area; put it under military occupation; and (I suppose) give it to a local strongman to administer.
The best that the benighted Muslims can hope for is a strongman with some concern for their future.
Steve Kogan writes:
I looked up civilian and military deaths in WW II and found some interesting disproportionate numbers. As Ben notes in his comment, such disparaties in war “tell us nothing about the relative justice” involved. They can also be misleading in strategic terms. According to warchronicle.com, there were 3 1/2 million German military deaths (from Hitler’s several wartime fronts across Europe and Africa) and 700,000 civilian deaths. There were 10 million Russian deaths in the military, mainly in opposition to the German invasion, and the same number of civilian deaths. Japan suffered 2 million military deaths and 350,000 civilian. The British Isles lost 360,000 in military actions and 62,000 civilian deaths. The United States lost 400,000 in wartime service. The website lists zero civilian deaths, which is an error, and poignantly so. A pregnant woman and five children were killed in Oregon when they came across a Japanese “fire balloon” laden with explosives. In strategic terms, it has often been stated that Russia bore the brunt of the war, given its 20 million dead and the enormity of its battles, but the sheer geographical space on which America and England fought was truly global in extent. Regarded strictly in themselves, such numbers can obscure more than they reveal.
Paul L. writes:
In response to your posts about the “disproportionate” casualties that come as a result of Operation Protective edge, I would like to let you know that you are mistaken if you think that Hamas began firing rockets in response to Israeli Military action. The truth is that Hamas has always been firing rockets and mortar shells into Israel. While the catalyst for Operation Protective edge is the Kidnapping of three Israeli teenagers and the predictable refusal on the part of Hamas to serve justice upon those guilty for the act, the objective of Operation Protective edge is to dismantle the increasingly industrial scale infrastructure that Hamas has put together to efficiently bombard Israel. These include remote firing positions where rockets are assembled from within a bunker and fired remotely from a safe distance. To describe this as a “revenge operation” is an unfair perjorative and fails to properly credit the limited and well defined military objectives guiding the IDF.
I will agree with statements from your readers to the effect that casualty numbers are a poor proxy for the moral environment of a conflict. Israel has suffered very few casualties because it has put inplace extensive measures to protect human life. Hamas uses human lives to protect their leaders and their offensive capabilities. Israeli Civilians are aided in seeking shelter during an imminent rocket strike. Palestinian civilians are persuaded to offer their lives as human shields so as to allow Hamas to wage political warfare against Israel with the aid of the Western left(and jew baiter’s of all stripes) even after their means of waging military warfare have been destroyed.
Shlomo Maistre writes:
You wrote:
The kidnapping of three people does not warrant this kind of extreme revenge and so many deaths.
Israel commenced Operation Protective Edge in response to incessant rocket and mortar fire from Gaza that often targets civilian population centers. Those attacks had intensified recently in (alleged) response to Israel’s arrest of hundreds of Hamas operatives, which (purportedly) occurred in reaction to the abduction and murder of three Israeli teens by Hamas operatives.
The two primary reasons why the casualty statistics are so lopsided are that Israel has deployed Iron Domes (highly effective in intercepting incoming rockets) throughout its territory and Hamas manufactures, stores, and launches its rockets in hospitals, nurseries, schools, homes, Mosques, etc.
In response to a single terrorist attack that threatened far less than 1% of his nation’s civilian population, President Bush vowed to make no distinction between terrorists and those who harbor them. America invaded two nations, installed puppet governments, and maintained vast military forces in both countries for over a decade.
In reaction to thousands of terrorist attacks threatening well over half of his nation’s civilians, Prime Minister Netanyahu unilaterally agreed to and obeyed (for six hours) a ceasefire proposed by Egypt. Israel reluctantly invaded Gaza and almost certainly possesses not the cojones to install a puppet government there or maintain a military presence of anything close to ten years, even though, unlike the Afghanis and Iraqis, the people of Gaza not only harbor but voted into power a terrorist organization, which, by the way, is explicitly dedicated to the destruction of Israel.
Whereas Al Qaeda justifies its terrorist attacks by citing American support of Arab dictators, Hamas justifies its terrorist attacks by citing the presence of Jews between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
Through Operation Protective Edge Israel seeks to reteach Hamas the lesson of the Six-Day War: the Land of Israel belongs to the People of Israel.
Anna T. writes from the West Bank:
Following your post, titled “the toll in Gaza and Israel”, I felt compelled to send you a note of disambiguation.
First, the operation isn’t called “Protective Edge”. Its proper name is “Firm Cliff” (my best translation of the Hebrew words “tzuk eitan”).
Do you wonder why much fewer Israelis than Arabs have, so far, been killed in this conflict?
The answer is simple. The Israeli protect their citizens. We invest much in devices such as the Iron Dome. Actually, to the best of our ability, we protect Gaza citizens, too. It seems Israel cares a lot more than Hamas about the citizens of Gaza. For Hamas, live people are used as human shields and the death of citizens is conveniently utilized as propaganda.
Meanwhile, Gaza and West Bank Arabs continue to receive complex and expensive treatment in Israeli hospitals, at Israeli expense. And I’m not referring to war casualties, either, but to things such as children’s oncology. I saw it with my own eyes when I did my hospital internship.
Ask yourself: can you imagine an Israeli being thus treated in a hospital in Gaza?
Ask yourself the following question: if (hypothetically, of course) rockets were constantly launched at the southern cities of USA from across the Mexican border, how would USA react? How long would it be until a full-blown war on Mexico? And how would the lives of USA citizens be valued, against the lives of Mexican citizens? Somehow, I think Israel was a lot more patient than America would be.
Israel vacated the Gaza strip in 2005. It was a one-sided decision; it was also a mistake. Why? Because ever since, the citizens of southern Israel have known no peace. Such a situation is intolerable. I do not doubt that the kidnapping and brutal murder of Naftali Frenkel (who, by the way, was an American citizen as well as an Israeli one), Gil-Ad Shaer and Eyal Yifrach served as a catalyst for the current operation in Gaza. However, this doesn’t mean that the operation was unwarranted. On the contrary, I believe it was tardy in coming. I have no doubt that if you lived in Sderot, you would feel the same.
I also believe Israel has no way to ensure its safety but re-take control over Gaza and wipe out the Hamas entirely.
Laura writes:
I appreciate the many comments. I agree, the disproportionate casualties do not on their own indicate wanton brutality on the part of Israel or that its response was unjust.
Laura adds:
However, there is a serious question as to whether Israel could have struck Hamas with fewer civilian casualties. The latest figures, as reported by The New York Times, are 556 Palestinian deaths and 27 Israeli deaths.
James N. writes:
I’m writing not to defend or upbraid Israel, but rather to call attention to a post-1945 phenomenon which has manifested itself again and again, which is the willful forgetting of what the noun “war” means, and what it implies for those who invoke its fearsome spectre.
Hamas, in its charter and in its public utterances makes no secret of the fact, or rather the claim, that it is at war with Israel. Within the past half-decade, Hamas has said that it would “open the gates of Hell” to visit destruction on the Israelis and their works.
Now, in a more sensible world, Hamas’ calling Israel out in that way would lead to a military campaign by Israel with the goal of forcing Hamas to surrender, meaning that Hamas would accept, voluntarily and fully, whatever terms Israel saw fit to impose. Such a campaign would presumably not involve civilian casualties on a 1939-1945 scale (after all, these are Arabs we are talking about, not exactly known for martial vigor). However, just as we put Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki to the sword, Hamas, having invoked the gates of Hell, might be expected to fear whatever flew out of these gates.
But, no. Hamas has the UN, enlightened opinion in Europe and in the Obama administration to make sure that the effluvia of Hell only flows in one direction.
I like Israel, sure. I also like it that America can choose her friends and not buckle to intimidation by con artists and thugs.
If Hamas wants war as badly as they say they do, then, by all means, let them have it, and have it until they don’t want it anymore.
Mr. Maistre writes:
James N. writes:
I’m writing not to defend or upbraid Israel, but rather to call attention to a post-1945 phenomenon which has manifested itself again and again, which is the willful forgetting of what the noun “war” means, and what it implies for those who invoke its fearsome spectre.
[…]
Now, in a more sensible world, Hamas’ calling Israel out in that way would lead to a military campaign by Israel with the goal of forcing Hamas to surrender, meaning that Hamas would accept, voluntarily and fully, whatever terms Israel saw fit to impose.
[…]
If Hamas wants war as badly as they say they do, then, by all means, let them have it, and have it until they don’t want it anymore.
This is an important point. The fundamental reason why Israel does not give war to Hamas until Hamas accepts whatever terms Israel dictates is because Israel is not de facto a sovereign nation.
The willful forgetting of what “war” means, which James N. rightly notes seems to be a post-1945 phenomenon, is intricately related to the lack of de facto sovereignty of almost every nation on earth, which (and not coincidentally) is also a post-1945 phenomenon. Though there’s room to quibble with any specific list, I’d designate the United States, Russia, China, and Germany as the only de facto sovereign nations on earth at the moment.
Israel cannot eliminate Hamas’s capacity and will to wage war because such action would require the permission of a sovereign nation. Israel receives American economic support and diplomatic protection in exchange for acting in alignment with American interests to an extent. Certainly chief among American interests is that Israel remains its client state and not an actually sovereign one. For now, as Israel has not taken sovereign (or what is called “unilateral”) action by decimating Hamas or bombing Iran without permission, Israel appears to place greater weight on the benefits of American support than the debilitating strings attached to it.
Hamas, as is so often the case with the weaker power in a modern day conflict, reports less directly to a sovereign power than does its adversary. Hamas is primarily and directly supported by the Palestinian Authority, Qatar and Turkey – at least at the moment. The first is a puppet of the American State Department. The second is home to America’s largest military base in the Middle East. And the third has been shifting of late under Prime Minister Erdogan from the American to the Russian sphere of influence.
You see, the elimination of Hamas would directly harm the interests of an American puppet (the Palestinian Authority), a pseudo American ally that is a key oil exporter and a burgeoning client of the American defense industry (Qatar), and a NATO member with rising moral authority in the Muslim world that is a key player in regional pipeline politics with the capacity to consolidate Russian influence over European economies at the expense of American influence (Turkey).
And this is how it is the world over: conflicts that, in remaining unresolved, serve the interests of sovereign power(s).
For instance, one may deduce from American actions that is in American interests to A) condemn the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea as a repressive regime that is cruel to its people and B) to not dismantle its regime by force, as such a liberating action would obviate much of the alleged justification for American troops, warships, and armaments to be stationed all around China. Unlike Iraq there is not on the Korean peninsula a juicy mix of ethnic and religious tensions to necessitate the presence of American security forces for a decade. Besides, though, only second-tier powers border Iraq so leaving no military presence there is of less consequence than losing a key justification for stationing troops next door to another sovereign power and clear rival (China).
How did this tense, destructive environment characterized by ongoing conflicts and widespread duplicity come to be?
The post-1945 environment is a flower that started as a seed. That seed was planted by President Woodrow Wilson who zealously sought to bless the world with democracy. On democracy’s tendency to lead to conflict, Mencius Moldbug:
We have an explanation for feature B, the tendency of the weaker party to attack. It is what an animal trainer would call fear biting. Moreover, the dog that does not fear-bite is liable to be kicked to death. Sovereign rights, when not defended, tend to vanish.
There is an accepted diplomatic term for what Seward and Lincoln, whatever did or did not pass between them, did at Sumter. That term is provocation. A provocation is an act designed, or reasonably expected, to cause the target to initiate hostilities. Provocation is only a useful tactic when the provoker is (a) stronger than the provokee, (b) does not want to be seen as the initiator of the conflict, and (c) knows that the provokee has no alternative but to respond.
For example, if the Confederacy had not fired on Sumter after Seward’s provocation, it would have effectively demonstrated its cowardice and pusillanimity to a population, North and South, well-trained to recognize both. It would have become laughable, and soon disappeared – as many in the North were predicting. The decision was fatal, of course, but there was no choice.
And so democracy claims another victim. Did you ever wonder how it took over the world? Here’s your answer. Camouflaged predation tends to be popular with the voters, who read it as laudable self-defence, the extermination of vermin, or both. And of course it deceives the enemy as well.
