Israel-Hamas Conflict: Humanitarian Calls Ignored as Israel Considers Ceasefire
Amidst the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict, there have been growing calls for a ceasefire from humanitarian organizations and prominent figures. Anthony Albanese, the leader of the Australian Labor Party, has urged Israel to pause its military operations for humanitarian reasons. US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has also called on Israel to exercise restraint with humanitarian pauses. The United Nations Secretary-General has joined in, appealing for an immediate ceasefire.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, however, has rejected these pleas, holding firm on Israel’s military efforts. However, talks seem to be underway for a significant pause in operations on the condition of the release of hostages. It is important to note that Hamas has threatened to livestream executions of these hostages, reminiscent of the tactics used by the Islamic State. Consequently, any cessation of operations would potentially allow Hamas combatants and hostages to be redeployed and supplied through their extensive network of tunnels, which could come at the cost of Israeli soldiers’ lives. Therefore, any proposed pause would require a beneficial exchange for Israel, such as the safe return of hostages.
Israel is known for making its own decisions and has historically defended itself without relying on external support. However, as the conflict prolongs over months, the tide of supportive opinion among its allies could turn, jeopardizing supply chain logistics.
To address the humanitarian concerns, regular pauses in Israeli military operations for limited humanitarian corridors could be a feasible solution. These pauses would allow aid to enter Gaza from neighboring countries like Egypt (by land) and Cyprus (by sea). It is crucial that these humanitarian corridors are subject to agreed-upon supervision in order to prevent their exploitation by Hamas.
Arrangements have already been made for aid trucks coming into Gaza from Egypt, which Israel permits only under specific safeguards. However, it’s important to note that Palestinians are not currently allowed to leave Gaza into Egypt. Hamas has inserted its wounded fighters among those seeking evacuation, which both Egypt and Israel deem unacceptable, resulting in the suspension of evacuations. Therefore, it is clear that humanitarian corridors require cooperation from all parties involved and cannot be unilateral endeavors.
Critics of Israel argue that its military operations in Gaza are disproportionate and disregard civilian lives. However, it is important to delineate the laws of war, which do not necessitate equivalence. Equivalent atrocities to those committed by Hamas are prohibited. Proportionality in international law requires that attacks use the minimum force necessary to destroy legitimate military targets, while avoiding civilian casualties. This requirement is based on the military intelligence available at the time of the attack, not hindsight.
The question remains whether civilian casualties caused by Israel have been excessive thus far. Hamas figures claim over 9,000 casualties, but their Ministry of Health does not distinguish between Gazan civilians and Hamas combatants. It is estimated that Hamas has between 20,000 to 40,000 fighters. In armed conflicts worldwide, civilian deaths often exceed those of combatants. In previous conflicts between Hamas and Israel, the percentage of Gazan civilian deaths was much lower, ranging from 15% to 25% of all casualties.
However, it is crucial to acknowledge that previous conflicts were more limited in scope, constituting pinpoint military operations. In the current full-scale war, the rate of civilian casualties may approach a 2:1 ratio. Additionally, it should be noted that 20% of Gazan civilian deaths are the result of Hamas’s mishaps and repression.
Israel has taken measures to minimize civilian casualties, including providing evacuation warnings weeks in advance, particularly before ground operations, and creating safe corridors for people to leave. In contrast, Hamas utilizes civilians as human shields and has targeted those attempting to flee Gaza City.
Hamas strategically locates its command centers, intelligence apparatus, weapons, and ammunition underneath protected civilian sites such as hospitals, schools, and UN compounds. While it claims this is to protect its fighters, it endangers innocent civilians in the process.
US generals have proposed using smaller diameter bombs to further minimize civilian casualties. However, it is important to note that these bombs would still need to penetrate the ground to target Hamas’s underground infrastructure effectively.
It is essential to recognize that Hamas is comparable to the Islamic State in terms of its savagery. During the battle to reclaim Mosul from the Islamic State in 2016, between 6,000 and 12,000 of their forces were embedded among the civilian population. The operation took nine months and resulted in the deaths of approximately 9,000 to 10,000 civilians. Gaza City, where the current conflict is unfolding, is more densely populated than Mosul was at the time. Additionally, Hamas is more deeply embedded within the civilian infrastructure than the Islamic State was in Mosul.
During the battle for Mosul, the coalition forces extensively used airstrikes and artillery attacks focused on military targets. While unavoidable civilian casualties did occur, the international community supported and actively participated in the military operations aimed at completely eliminating the Islamic State.
In the case of Israel, it is imperative that they have the time and space to defeat a terrorist organization that actively seeks the genocide of Jews and Israelis. Stopping before Hamas is dismantled would only pave the way for further atrocities, as promised by its leaders. Though an Israeli ceasefire or general pause for humanitarian purposes would provide Hamas with significant benefits from the use of civilian shields, it may be possible to negotiate temporary humanitarian corridors in exchange for the release of hostages. These are the complex dilemmas presented in times of war.
Greg Rose is a professor of law at the University of Wollongong, and Anthony Bergin is a senior fellow at Strategic Analysis Australia. This article, originally published in The Australian, understands the challenges and considerations surrounding the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict from a legal and strategic perspective.
