Photo Credit: Al Jazeera
Key Points:
· Introduction
· Article 51 – Hamas considers Gazans expendable
· Gaza Metro – a unique battlefield
· A historical first
· Hamas’ political-military strategy (See video)
· Debunking myths of Israeli war crimes (See video)
· Biden finds partisan politics outweighs U.S. foreign policy
A recent report appearing on the pages of the Modern War Institute at West Point, the home of the U.S. Military Academy, shines the spotlight on Hamas’ culpability for the deaths, destruction and chaos in the Gaza Strip.
The article, “Gaza’s Underground: Hamas’s Entire Politico-Military Strategy Rests on Its Tunnels,” unequivocally points the finger at Hamas, rather than the Israel Defense Forces, as the perpetrator of continuous war crimes tantamount to committing genocide against its own people.
Furthermore, the big lie that Israel is guilty of genocide – currently in vogue among progressive Democrats and the news media, and screamed by anti-Israel supporters of Hamas – is easily debunked by going directly to the ICRC (Red Cross) International Humanitarian Law Database.
The Shoe Is on the Other Foot
From the outset of hostilities that began on October 7, Hamas has trampled on a key provision of Article 51 – Protection of Civilian Population which reads as it appears in the database:
“The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favor or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.”
It is the strategy of Hamas – composed of Sunni Muslims but armed by Shia Iran – which has resulted in the Gaza population becoming sacrificial lambs. A reasonable person might ask why this is continuously ignored in the halls of Congress, the White House, the United Nations and elsewhere.
Gaza Tunnels – A Battlefield Like No Other
The West Point article provides a cogent explanation for how Hamas’ political-military strategy has become a historical first. To wit, Hamas has crossed a red line in the annals of modern warfare that was never contemplated by the crafters of the international rules of war.
“What Israel has faced in Gaza represents a unique first in war – namely a case in which tunnels form one of two pillars, along with time, of a combatant’s political-military strategy,” says John Spencer, author of the article. He is chair of urban warfare studies at the Modern War Institute, codirector of the institute’s Urban Warfare Project, and a founding member of the International Working Group on Subterranean Warfare.
According to Spencer, the Hamas tunnel network, which has been dubbed the “Metro,” may run as much as 350-450 miles with as many as 5,700 separate shafts “descending into hell.” They include manufacturing plants, luxury tunnels with painted walls, ceiling fans, air conditioning, blast doors, workshops, sleeping quarters, toilets, kitchens, “and all the ventilation, electricity, and telephone lines to support what amount to underground cities.” All for an estimated cost of $1 billion spent over the past 15 years.
A New Historical First
“The sheer size of Hamas’ underground networks may, once fully discovered, be beyond anything a modern military has ever faced,” the article stresses. “But more importantly than the scale of the tunnels in Gaza, the Israel-Hamas war is the first war in which a combatant has made its vast underground network a defining centerpiece of its overall political-military strategy.”
Spencer opines that for the first time in the history of tunnel warfare, Hamas has built a tunnel network both to gain a military advantage and a political advantage. “Hamas weaved its vast tunnel networks into the society on the surface,” he says, adding that “destroying the tunnels is virtually impossible without adversely impacting the population living in Gaza.”
He continues painting a portrait of Hamas that is either not understood or purposely ignored by the Biden administration and many other democracies. “Consequently, they put the modern laws of war at the center of the conflict’s conduct. These laws restrict the use of military force and methods or tactics that a military can use against protected populations and sites such as hospitals, churches, schools, and United Nations facilities.”
With most tunnels built into civilian and protected site in densely populated urban areas, it becomes complicated to discriminating between military targets and civilian locations, “if not rendering it impossible, because Hamas does not have military sites separate from civilian sites,” Spencer explains.
VIDEO: Hamas Pays For Tunnel Right-of-Way Under Homes (English translation)
Hamas’ Predictable Strategy
Hamas did not contemplate holding terrain or defeating the IDF, but rather aimed to “create time for international pressure on Israel to stop its military operation to mount,” Spencer notes.
The terror organization “is globally known for using human shields” and it wants “as many civilians as possible to be harmed by Israeli military action,” he continues. “While arguably, no military in the world is as well prepared for subterranean tactical challenges as the IDF … to destroy many of the deep-buried tunnels, the IDF has required bunker-busting bombs which Israel is criticized for using,” Spencer explains.
The Hamas strategy clearly is based on time, emphasizes Spencer. “Hamas is in the tunnels. Its leaders and weapons are in the tunnels. The Israeli hostages are in the tunnels.”
Now the question is whether time will favor the terrorist organization?
Rules of International Humanitarian Law
The ICRC International Humanitarian Law Database sets out rules of conduct the IDF, composed of active duty personnel and called-up reserves, adheres to in conformance with its doctrine of “purity of arms.”
VIDEO: Who are the Israeli reservists called to battle? (English translation)
Nevertheless, in the heat of battle there may be alleged missteps and the IDF, which is under continual scrutiny by friend and foe alike, rarely shies away from public self-criticism.
Such was the situation with the March 11 announcement that the commander of the IDF’s 99th Division was formally censured for the demolition of a university in the Gaza Strip earlier this year without the necessary authorization.
According to The Times of Israel, the demolition of Israa University in January and the approval process of the controlled explosion was “thoroughly investigated” by the commanding general of the Southern Command and presented to the IDF chief of staff. “The investigation revealed that the Hamas terror organization used the building and its surroundings for military activity against our forces, but the process of collapsing the building was done without the required approvals,” said an IDF statement.
The 99th Division general reportedly said that, based on the updated intelligence available at the time, his forces rightfully feared the inherent danger posed by the Hamas tunnel network under the school and were apprehensive about a Hamas ambush.
Army Radio reported that after the general’s censure, the Southern Command chief told him: “If you had submitted the request to collapse the university for my approval, I would have approved it.”
The bottom line - no war crime.
IDF’s Actions Are Kosher
Bearing in mind that Hamas operatives do not wear uniforms and try to melt into the “civilian” population, as well as the responsibility of Israeli commanders not to unnecessarily sacrifice their troops in order to conform to the rules of warfare now being applied to an underground battlefield but that should no longer be considered sacrosanct, here is a litany of the IDF’s continued compliance with Articles 51, 52 and 57 of the ICRC rules:
· The IDF doesn’t target civilians and its “primary purpose is not to spread terror among the civilian population.”
· The IDF knows that civilians are not protected by these rules if “they take a direct part in hostilities” and it is permissible to act accordingly.
· The IDF doesn’t conduct “indiscriminate attacks” but focuses on specific “military objectives and not civilians or civilian objects without distinction.”
· IDF attacks by bombardment don’t “treat as a single objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives.”
· IDF attacks which may be expected to cause incidental civilian casualties are not “excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.”
· The IDF complies with the rule stating “military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.”
· The IDF doesn’t “presume” that an object normally dedicated to civilian purposes is being used for an effective contribution to military action but arrives at that conclusion based on Hamas’ actions in battlefield conditions.
· The IDF does “everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilian not subject to special protection” but are military objectives not prohibited.
· The IDF takes “all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of attack” to avoid or minimize effects on civilians.
· The IDF doesn’t conduct attacks “which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.”
· The IDF has a longstanding history of giving civilians effective advance warning of attacks which may affect them “unless circumstances do not permit.”
· When it is possible to choose between several military objectives to obtain a similar military advantage, the IDF selects the one “expected to cause the least danger to civilians.”
· IDF military operations at sea or air are taken with “all reasonable precautions to avoid loses of civilian lives and damage to civilian objects.”
Conclusion
Currently, the Biden administration is sacrificing American foreign policy in its quest for “four more years.”
Consider the following:
· Reports are now circulating that U.S. supplies of military equipment to Israel have slowed down to a snail pace.
· An American president and secretary of State call on a friendly democracy to dump its prime minister.
· The Biden administration has publicly boasted that it has made Israel sign a letter pledging not to use U.S. supplied weaponry in violation to so-called humanitarian rules.
· Biden is telling Israel what it is allowed to target, specifically Rafah and the Philadelphi corridor.
In essence, Biden and those who act in his name are demanding that Israel fight Hamas in the south and Hezbollah in the north with one hand tied behind its back.
Israel is now facing U.S. and international pressure to speed up the delivery of “humanitarian aid” to Gazans, which ultimately means Hamas, all with no American or foreign “boots on the ground,” as Biden recently boasted to Congress.
In other words, Israeli blood is cheaper than American or European blood.
-30-