Quick Hits
The Israeli ground invasion began in earnest late on Friday, October 27th. Israeli officials are calling it a “Limited Ground Invasion” and “Stage Two” of a longer operation. While on the ground, knowledge is difficult to acquire, it appears as if the IDF intends to surround Gaza City and route out Hamas operatives, military assets, and tunnels in the area.
The Israeli Air Force (IAF) conducted an air strike on a neighborhood in Jabalya, killing a top Hamas leader. The airstrike triggered a series of collapses in the ground underneath the area where Hamas had dug tunnels and stored weapons, leading to catastrophic damage to several apartment buildings and the death of dozens of civilians. (More Below)
There is growing evidence that Hamas is killing Gazan civilians attempting to comply with the IDF’s order for them to flee south and get out of the way of the Israeli military operation targeted at Hamas. The IDF released audio of their conversation with a Gazan citizen, and a video taken by a Gazan in the Gaza Strip shows a series of people shot in the street in an area where no IDF forces are currently located.
As of Thursday, the United Nations Human Rights Council is now being chaired by Iran. Despite a long history of human rights abuses, most recently the training and funding of Hamas and the killing of a 16-year-old girl for failing to wear her Hijab in public. The United States is boycotting the council in response.
Hezbollah1 leader Hassan Nasrallah gave a speech. Friday, November 3rd, his first remarks since October 7th, where he said…very little. Most notably, he did not commit his forces to an escalation with Israel beyond the current smattering of rocket fire coming from their forces at the Lebanon Border.
A Closer Look
IAF Bombing of Jamalyiah
Early this week, the IAF struck Hamas tunnels in the Refugee Camp2 of Jamalyiah. The operation was successful, leading to a collapse of the terror tunnels beneath the Refugee Camp and killing a senior Hamas commander, Ibrahim Biari, along with multiple Hamas fighters who were hiding beneath the Camp. In the course of the destruction, it was reported that dozens of civilians were killed as well. This story illustrates in vivid detail the moral complexity of the conflict, and so I think it is worth our time to pause and think through it.
In this situation, we have a few things at play. A known group of Hamas combatants with one of their leaders hiding in a military fortification stockpiled with weapons and likely booby-trapped in the event of an invasion. They have an opportunity to kill one of the masterminds of October 7th and take a commander away from the Hamas forces, weakening their military cohesiveness. Beyond this, they face a network of tunnels that absolutely qualify as a military fortification under international law. These tunnels are filled with war-making supplies and would be a death trap to Israeli troops if they attempted to clear them out. Furthermore, the use of ground forces would not eliminate civilian casualties, but it would likely reduce them. If the ground troop option were selected, the Hamas commander would almost certainly escape.
The IDF had a decision: if they did not strike Jabalyiah, they would miss the opportunity to kill the Hamas commander, dramatically increase the number of their own soldier’s deaths, but reduce (not eliminate) the number of civilian deaths. They assessed that the military benefit of eliminating the Hamas commander, destroying the military fortifications, and protecting their soldiers was worth the dozens of civilian casualties who had been duly warned to leave the area days prior. I think people of good conscience can disagree with this assessment. They can say that it is the responsibility of the civilized government to risk the blood of its sons and daughters for the sake of noncombatants. But, the people who make this assessment should hold that position consistently—and criticize every other military in the world for all of human history—as they would have made the same assessment.
A Broader Look at the Moral Considerations
Over the past weeks, one of the more common responses I have seen from both social and traditional media is a rapid leap to a so-called “nonviolent” position, such as a call for a “ceasefire” or a “humanitarian pause” that fails to evaluate the breadth of the situation faced by the Israeli people and their defense force. Let’s review the current situation:
Hamas sent 2-3 thousand terrorists who targeted, tortured, raped, dismembered, murdered and desecrated. Over 1400 Israeli citizens and foreign nationals taking over 200 hostages back into Gaza, where they are being held in tunnels beneath the ground.
Hamas has stolen billions of dollars that were intended for humanitarian relief and economic development and used it to build weapons and dig tunnels underneath densely populated areas to conduct military operations.
The IDF has ordered civilians to move south to avoid getting caught in the crossfire of their operation in the north, giving several days for the people to be able to flee.
Hamas is ordering the people to stay where they are to maximize the number of civilian casualties and increase pressure on Israel.
Hamas is reportedly killing civilians who are fleeing south to enforce their order that the civilians remain.
It must be noted that every single one of Hamas’s actions are war crimes under every standard of International Law, and based on the knowledge we have now, none of Israel’s actions have violated International Law.3 Israel is facing an enemy that has absolutely no regard for human life, in fact, they are doing everything they can to maximize the number of civilian deaths, both Gazan and Israeli. A ceasefire right now would guarantee more civilian deaths in the future as Hamas leadership has told international reporters this week they will repeat massacres like October 7th again and again until Israel (and they mean every Jew in the land) is dead.
So, the Israeli military faces a series of terrible choices.
Cease Military Activity—accept the likely deaths of the 200+ hostages—perhaps permit Hamas to fire rockets indiscriminately at their civilians and hope Iron Dome intercepts them. Build defensive fortifications around the border wall and hope Hamas is not able to take any more hostages or kill, rape, and murder their citizens again.
Cease Airstrikes relying instead upon ground troops alone, creating a much slower war with all that that entails (shortage of basic goods, etc) and a far more dangerous war for Israel’s soldiers who would be attempting to take over heavily fortified positions filled with booby traps and ambush positions. Continue to attempt to rescue the hostages but recognize that they are likely going to be slaughtered by Hamas.
Proceed as they have been. Continuing targeted airstrikes but allowing a safe crossing corridor of passage out of the military targeted zones to limit the civilian casualties. Attempt to rescue the hostages but recognize that they are likely going to be slaughtered by Hamas.
Hold all of Gaza responsible for the actions of their government and carpet bomb Gaza indiscriminately, wiping out terrorists, hostages, and civilians alike and ending the security threat from Gaza once and for all.
All four choices are logistically and militarily possible for the Israeli government. A key differentiator between Israel and Hamas is that Hamas, given the chance, would undoubtedly pursue option 4—Israel has not and will not. The words “Genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” are often bandied about when speaking of the actions of the IDF—they are libel. Israel absolutely has the military capability to wipe Gaza from the face of the earth; it chooses not to use the full extent of its military might because of the value it has for human life, even the lives of civilians who hate them and who celebrated in the streets upon hearing about the massacres of October 7th. Choice 4 is utterly unthinkable and would never be taken by the Israeli government.
But, unlike most media outlets, we must not forget that Israel is not the only moral agent in the conflict. Hamas, too, has choices:
Continue to hide behind women and children and fight their suicidal Jihad against the Jews in the region. Release, kill, and hold the hostages at strategic times to garner international sympathy or to demoralize and destabilize Israel. Fight to the last and die as “martyrs” and hope that Allah is pleased with the rape and butchery of women and children.
Distinguish themselves and their military operations from the civilian population to limit the number of civilian casualties. Cease shooting rockets from schools, mosques, and hospitals. Dismantle their headquarters underneath the largest hospital in Gaza and relocate to a remote area that—if struck—would not result in the death of children. Try and trade the hostages for concessions in policy or in exchange for security or safe passage out of Gaza and to Qatar, where your leadership is currently living in luxury hotels.
Surrender themselves to Israel. Return the hostages and accept the consequences for their crimes. Israel does not have the death penalty, so their lives would likely be spared.
Hamas started this war, and they can end it at any time by surrendering and returning the hostages. Any moral consideration or advocacy for action must recognize the agency of all parties involved. Leading to our last group of moral agents. The civilian population of Gaza. They, too, face choices, albeit terrible ones:
Attempt to flee to the south and incur the wrath of Hamas in the south or on the road south where Israel has said it will not bomb at certain times to permit civilian escape.
Remain in place and risk getting caught in the military actions of Israel and Hamas.
Revolt en masse—hand over Hamas to Israel—free the hostages and sue for peace.
All three of these options risk death. There is no option for the citizens of Gaza that do not risk death. They are in a horrible situation and deserve our prayers, sympathy, and our government’s concerns. Exacerbating their problems is Egypt’s refusal to admit any Gazan refugees. It is a historically understandable move, considering the violent role Palestinian terrorists played in Jordan and the Lebanese Civil War, not to mention Hamas’s actions in the Arab Spring in the early 2010s. But all the historically understandable reasons in the world do not improve the circumstances of the true innocents stuck with terrible options.
These are the choices faced by the key groups. Any assessment of what ought to be done must recognize the agency to all parties involved. We also must remember that nonaction is a moral choice with consequences. Hamas wants the destruction of Israel. The security of civilians is the government's responsibility under every sane political theory of governance. Israel would be criminally negligent if it were to permit Hamas to rearm and launch further attacks on its people when they know for a fact that Hamas is intent on doing so. Israel did not ask for this war; it was forced upon it by a wicked group of sadists serving a demonic god who, according to them, desires Jewish blood. Hamas is the great barrier to lasting peace between the two peoples. There is no moral equivalency between these two groups of people.
Israel earns its reputation as a civilized democracy because of its restraint in the extreme circumstances of war. Therefore, it is right for us to ask questions of them when actions have occurred that are or seem outside of the moral law. We must keep asking questions; they keep civilized militaries honest and can legitimately save lives. But we also must recognize that the actions of wicked men sometimes leave the good with terrible choices. Pray that they make the best one.
Hezbollah is the Iranian-backed militia in Lebanon.
I use the term “Refugee Camp” with some hesitation because it has been in Gaza for decades and is essentially a neighborhood. Maintaining that it is a refugee camp is a part of the Palestinian PR war to garner sympathy for the residents, who are the descendants of the Arabs who were displaced by the 1948