It's Still Not Genocide

 My son and his girlfriend are all aboard the Israeli (and Joe Biden) Genocide train. Some of this is the crappy definition the UN has proffered. Basically, if you have civilian casualties during a war, you're doing genocide. That demeans and degrades the term. Israel and Hamas have traded atrocities, with Hamas planning civilian casualties and Israel being brutally indifferent to them.

As usual, frankly with all people but especially the younger folk, there is a lack of historical perspective. The original Israeli-Palestinian conflict set a pattern of the Israeli military easily handling Palestinian forces. When Egypt, Syria and others joined in, Israel still came out of top. As a result, opponents of Israel tended to rely on terrorism to accomplish...well, it's not clear they accomplished anything. Terrorist attacks allowed Israel to never feel fully secure, which I suppose was the point. Efforts to create a Palestinian state increased under Bill Clinton, Dubya Bush and Barack Obama, but after 2006 they were effectively DOA with Netanyahu in charge.

At some point in the long running terrorist campaign against Israel, the Israelis developed a doctrine that was basically, "If you launch terrorist attacks from your area, we will respond disproportionately. It's not 'an eye for an eye,' but 'a hundred eyes for an eye.'" I'm sure those reflexively opposed to Israel will call this an atrocity or genocide or something. What it is, is the doctrine of deterrence. 

Deterrence is basically making a conflict unthinkable, because the consequences will be too dire. The most famous (and successful in its way) form of deterrence is nuclear deterrence. Nuclear armed states have very clear lines around what they can do to each other, as we are seeing in Ukraine. Israel's promise of massive retaliation was designed to change the calculus around terror attacks against Israeli civilians. The point of terror attacks is that they are cheap, splashy and tough to defend against. The retaliation doctrine dramatically raises the stakes for groups that think killed a few Israeli citizens will help their cause. 

What's important to note is that Hamas knew this when they launched their October 7th massacre. This is why I say that dead Palestinians are a feature not a regrettable outcome for Hamas.

All of this is really about two different ways to see the world. The UN with their paper declarations is largely about the "Liberal" view of diplomacy and military affairs. States can work out their differences through deliberation and common cause. The "Realist" view is that this is all soft bullshit and only power matters. 

Which one is correct? They are both right; they are both wrong. Depends on each situation. 

For the last 60 years, the Realists have tended to have the better argument about the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Recently, agreements between Israel and Arab states have shifted to hopes that a more Liberal perspective can dominate the foreign affairs of the Middle East. October 7th returned us to the Realist perspective. 

What matters is power and deterrence. That's what Israel is doing right now. Making another October 7th unthinkable. The problem is that tolerance of naked realist policy is pretty low in places where Israel would usually count on support. They may be the biggest bully on the block, and that might have worked in the 1970s and '80s. It's unclear if that will work anymore.