RSS
Misplaced Moral Outrage on Civilian Casualties
Former US President Barack Obama. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.
JNS.org – “Israel has taken more steps to avoid harming civilians than any other military in history. … Steps that Israel has taken to prevent casualties [are] historic in comparison to all these other wars.” — John Spencer, chairman of urban warfare studies, West Point, Feb. 17, 2024
“[Immediately after taking office] Obama authorized two Central Intelligence Agency drone strikes in northwest Pakistan, which, combined, killed an estimated one militant and 10 civilians, including between four and five children.” — “Obama’s Embrace of Drone Strikes Will Be a Lasting Legacy,” New York Times, Jan. 12, 2016
In recent years, we have investigated civilian harm from U.S. air strikes … in Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia, and found that thousands of civilians have been killed or seriously injured … with little accountability.” — Amnesty International at a U.S. Senate Judiciary Council hearing, Feb. 9, 2022
The recent accidental deaths of seven foreign aid workers with World Central Kitchen in the Gaza Strip have sparked an eruption of anti-Israel vitriol that highlights the vicious Judeophobic prejudice that is sweeping much of the globe today. This is something that defies all and any tenets of morality and reason. Indeed, by any conceivable criterion of human decency, there is no conflict in recent history in which the gulf between good and evil, wanton barbarism and humanitarian restraint, has been so clearly delineated as that between the protagonists in the ongoing war in Gaza.
Painstaking Israeli restraint
The tragedy of collateral damage has been a lamentable aspect of warfare ever since nation-states began to displace dynastic monarchies as the dominant structural element in the international system and perhaps even before that.
Rarely if ever has one of the belligerent parties—let alone the victim of a brutal unprovoked attack on its civilians—demonstrated such painstaking care to avoid harm befalling enemy civilians as Israel. This is reflected in the unequivocal declaration of the former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, Col. Richard Kemp: “I have fought in combat zones around the world including Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Macedonia and Iraq. I was also present throughout the conflict in Gaza in 2014. Based on my experience and on my observations, the Israel Defense Forces … does more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.”
In Gaza, the vulnerability of non-combatants is greatly exacerbated by the malicious actions of their leaders, who cynically exploit them by deliberately placing them in harm’s way and coercively preventing them from seeking safe havens. Thus, as a Wall Street Journal piece underscores, “Israel seeks to minimize civilian casualties, while Hamas seeks to maximize civilian casualties and use them as a propaganda tool.”
Israel setting ‘gold standard’ for avoiding civilian casualties
The chairman of urban warfare studies at West Point, John Spencer, described Israel’s achievements in avoiding collateral damage as “unprecedented,” particularly given the complex combat conditions in Gaza above and below ground. According to Spencer, Israel is setting the “gold standard” for avoiding civilian casualties.
Likewise, Kemp praised the IDF for its record of avoiding civilian casualties during its operations in Gaza and pointed out that the average combatant-to-civilian death ratio in Gaza is about 1:1.5, while according to the United Nations, the average combatant-to-civilian death ratio in urban warfare in general is 1:9—six times higher.
The issue of civilian casualties in Gaza is hugely complicated by Hamas’s heinous practice of exploiting medical facilities as a cover for its terror activities. This includes the copiously documented abuse of ambulances for the transportation of terror-related personnel and materiel.
Israeli moderation is underscored by comparison to non-combatant fatalities in other military encounters involving democracies at war. In World War II, nearly 600,000 European civilians were killed by Allied aerial bombardment of German cities that were reduced to rubble and ashes. Moreover, cities in other countries in Nazi-occupied Europe were bombarded—including their non-combatant civilian residents. One of the most grisly and tragic of these events occurred in Copenhagen in March 1945, when the RAF was sent to bomb the Gestapo headquarters in the city. It inadvertently hit a nearby school, killing 123 Danish civilians, including 87 schoolchildren.
Then there were the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki—neither of which was ever designated as a military target—of whom between 100,000 to 200,000 were incinerated and irradiated by the U.S. atomic bombings in early August 1945.
“There is always a cost to defeat an evil.”
Half a century later, after hundreds of thousands were killed by American bombing in the Vietnam War, NATO launched a war against Serbia. The NATO campaign consisted of high altitude—and hence far from accurate—bombing raids that regularly hit civilian targets. These targets included residential neighborhoods, old-age homes, hospitals, open-air markets, columns of fleeing refugees, civilian buses, trains on bridges and even a foreign embassy.
When then-NATO spokesman Jamie Shea was pressed on the issue of the significant numbers of civilian casualties, he responded, “There is always a cost to defeat an evil. It never comes free, unfortunately. But the cost of failure to defeat a great evil is far higher.” This is exactly how Israelis feel about the war against Hamas.
These were not the only post-World War II instances of pervasive human suffering caused by large-scale U.S.-led military operations.
More babies died in Iraq than in Hiroshima
After Saddam Hussein’s 1991 takeover of Kuwait, the United States and its allies imposed sanctions on Iraq and dispatched forces to repel the invasion. Even after Hussein was evicted from Kuwait, sanctions and military operations continued. These measures resulted in tremendous suffering for the civilian population. The scale of it can be gauged by a 1996 60 Minutes interview with the late Madeleine Albright, the former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. and secretary of state under Bill Clinton. Albright was quizzed by the interviewer Leslie Stahl about the ravages the U.S.-led measures wrought on the Iraqi population.
Stahl asked, “We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?” Albright responded, “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price—we think the price is worth it.”
Of course, it should be underscored that—unlike Israel’s post-Oct. 7 response to a massacre of its citizens on its sovereign territory—at this (pre-9/11) time, neither the U.S. homeland nor any U.S. resident had been harmed by the Iraqi regime.
‘A tremendous human toll … ’
In 2001, in response to the 9/11 attacks in which almost 3,000 people died, a U.S.-led military coalition (in which the U.K. played a prominent role) invaded Afghanistan to topple the Taliban government and uproot Al-Qaeda. The Oct. 7 massacre was—in proportion to Israel’s population—almost 35 times the toll of the 9/11 atrocity; the equivalent of almost 50,000 U.S. fatalities.
Although reliable figures regarding the toll the war inflicted on the civilian population of Afghanistan and neighboring countries are not easy to obtain, an estimate published by Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs states, “The U.S. post-9/11 wars … have taken a tremendous human toll on those countries.” It presents a 2021 assessment that almost 47,000 Afghani civilians were killed, but adds a proviso that “several times … more have been killed as a reverberating effect of the wars,” including through “water loss, sewage and other infrastructural issues, and war-related disease.”
Thousands of civilians hit ‘with little accountability’
U.S. strikes in which indisputably civilian targets were hit are a matter of record. During the 20-year war in Afghanistan, several weddings, parties and processions were struck by drones—inflicting hundreds of fatalities, including women and children. Such strikes took place not only in Afghanistan but in other countries, including neighboring Pakistan and more distant Iraq, Yemen, Libya and even Somalia.
Summing up the consequences of the U.S. strikes, Amnesty International USA stated: “In recent years, we have investigated civilian harm from U.S. air strikes and U.S.-led Coalition airstrikes in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Somalia, and found that thousands of civilians have been killed or seriously injured by U.S. air strikes (both using drones and manned aircraft) with little accountability.”
Finally. the 2003 invasion of Iraq by a U.S.-led coalition—launched on the dubious or at least unsubstantiated allegations that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was producing weapons of mass destruction—wrought untold misery on millions of Iraqi civilians and a death toll upwards of 300,000 non-combatants.
Closing caveat
The current vogue of berating Israel is both unfounded and unfair. Lending this abuse support or sympathy will only serve to fan the flames of today’s smoldering embers of hatred that will eventually engulf those who propagate it.
The post Misplaced Moral Outrage on Civilian Casualties first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Jews Urged Not to Attend German Music Festival Headlined by Anti-Israel Rapper Macklemore
Macklemore performing on stage at Rock In Rio Lisbon, in Lisbon, Portugal, on June 22, 2024. Photo: Nuno Cruz via Reuters Connect
A major Jewish organization in Germany and the country’s commissioner for the fight against antisemitism have warned Jews against attending a large German music festival in July because the headliner is Grammy-winning American rapper Macklemore, who has a history of making antisemitic and anti-Israel comments.
Macklemore, whose real name is Benjamin Hammond Haggerty, is scheduled to perform as the main act at the Deichbrand Festival in Cuxhaven that will run from July 17-20. Approximately 60,000 people are reportedly expected to attend the festival this summer.
In his lyrics and comments on and off stage, the Seattle-based “Thrift Shop” rapper has promoted antisemitic stereotypes; repeatedly accused Israel of genocide, apartheid, and war crimes; and compared the struggles that Palestinians have in the West Bank to the horrors Jews experienced in the Holocaust.
The “Can’t Hold Us” singer made numerous anti-Israel claims in his songs last year titled “F—ked Up,” “Hind’s Hall,” and “Hind’s Hall 2,” and described Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a “colonizer.”
The Central Council of Jews in Germany said on Tuesday that Macklemore’s invitation to perform at the music festival sends a “sobering signal” that antisemitism is welcome “on the big stage.”
“The fact that Macklemore spreads antisemitic propaganda and trivializes the Holocaust in his lyrics and videos seems to be of little interest,” the Jewish organization added. A spokesperson for the Central Council of Jews in Germany further told German media that following Macklemore’s invitation to perform at the music event, “the Deichbrand Festival is therefore no longer a safe place for Jews.”
Felix Klein, the federal government’s commissioner for Jewish life in Germany and the fight against antisemitism, also condemned Macklemore’s scheduled performance at the music festival. Klein told the German news outlet RND that Macklemore promotes “very real hatred against Jews” and should not be offered a stage in Germany to perform on.
The Deichbrand Festival responded to backlash about Macklemore’s upcoming performance. “We do not tolerate discrimination in any form, including antisemitism, racism, sexism, queer and transphobia, ableism or aggressive behavior,” said a spokesperson for the festival’s organizers.
In his pro-Palestinian song “Hind’s Hall,” Macklemore applauded protests at American colleges and universities that criticize Israel’s military actions during the Israel-Hamas war. In the same song, he accused the Jewish state of occupation and suggested that the deadly Hamas terrorist attacks in Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, were an act of “resistance.” The track’s title refers to the Columbia University building Hamilton Hall, which anti-Israel student protesters broke into and occupied and renamed “Hind’s Hall” in honor of Hind Rajab — a child killed in Gaza during the Israel-Hamas war.
In “Hind’s Hall 2,” Macklemore featured performers who sang “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” a slogan that is widely interpreted as a call for the destruction of Israel, which is located between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, and for it to be replaced with “Palestine.”
Macklemore has also supported efforts to fund the controversial United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which has faced widely corroborated allegations that several of its employees are active Hamas members and participated in the terrorist group’s Oct. 7 massacre across southern Israel. All proceeds from “Hind’s Hall” went to UNRWA and the rapper participated in a pro-Palestinian concert in his hometown of Seattle in September 2024 in which proceeds were given to various groups, including UNRWA.
The post Jews Urged Not to Attend German Music Festival Headlined by Anti-Israel Rapper Macklemore first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
US Energy Secretary Says Washington Can Stop Iran’s Oil Exports
US Secretary of Energy Chris Wright speaks to the media, outside of the West Wing of the White House, in Washington, DC, US, March 19, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Kent Nishimura
US Energy Secretary Chris Wright said on Friday that the United States could stop Iran’s oil exports as part of President Donald Trump’s plan to pressure Tehran over its nuclear program.
The January return to the White House of Trump, who in his first term withdrew the US from a 2015 nuclear accord with Tehran and clamped down on its oil exports, has again brought a tougher approach to the Middle Eastern power over its nuclear work.
Wright, speaking to Reuters on a visit to Abu Dhabi, said he thought the Gulf allies of the United States were extremely concerned about a nuclear-powered Iran and shared the US resolve that this is an outcome that is in no one’s best interest.
Iranian oil exports recovered under Joe Biden, who became president after Trump’s first term, and so far in 2025 have yet to show a decline, according to industry data. China, which opposes unilateral sanctions, buys the bulk of Iran’s shipments.
“That’s actually very doable. President Trump actually did it in the first term,” Wright said when asked how the United States can enforce its maximum pressure policy on Tehran. “We can follow the ships leaving Iran. We know where they go. We can stop Iran’s export of oil.”
Asked if the US would directly stop Iranian ships at sea, he said, “I’m not going to talk about the specific methodology of how that’s going to happen. But can we turn the screws on Iran? 100 percent.”
Iran said on Friday that it was giving high-level nuclear talks with the United States on Saturday “a genuine chance” after Trump threatened bombing if discussions failed.
Asked if military action against Iran would lead to regime change, he said he would not talk specifics but “everything is on the table.”
“In the short run, because of the strength of American energy production and our relations with our allies, we‘re going to tighten the sanctions and tighten the ability for Iran to export oil. You start economic, you start with negotiations, we hope that’s enough. But the end of the day is, no nuclear armed Iran.”
OIL PRICES
Wright also predicted that there would be a positive outlook for oil demand and supply in the next few years under Trump’s policies, and the concern of markets about economic growth will be proven wrong.
Comfortable oil price levels are “not meaningfully different from where we are today,” he said.
“But of course industry’s got to be profitable to drive growth. And I think that’s going to come from a combination of structural impediments that are removed by the Trump administration and innovation by the industry.”
There was “no direct coordination” between the US and the OPEC+ producer group about its decision to boost supply “but we have very close relationships with our key allies” in the Gulf, Wright said, adding he believed they share the Trump administration’s view that “the world needs more energy.”
Trump, days after taking office, publicly called on the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and its de facto leader Saudi Arabia to reduce oil prices. OPEC and allies including Russia comprise the wider OPEC+ group. Its supply boost deepened an oil price plunge triggered by Trump’s sweeping tariffs announcement last week.
Wright will fly to Saudi Arabia for his next stop of a Middle East tour that is his first trip abroad in his role, followed by a visit to Qatar.
China will likely have slower oil demand growth over the next few years, he said when asked about the impact of Trump’s tariff policies, but said demand growth would come from places like South Asia and Latin America.
The post US Energy Secretary Says Washington Can Stop Iran’s Oil Exports first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
New York Times Takes Iran’s Side in US-Iran Talks
The New York Times building in New York City. Photo: Wikimedia Commons
The New York Times coverage of the US-Iran nuclear talks seems written from Iran’s perspective.
One Times article reports that the talks “come at a perilous moment, as Iran has lost the air defenses around its key nuclear sites because of precise Israeli strikes last October. And Iran can no longer rely on its proxy forces in the Middle East — Hamas, Hezbollah and the now-ousted Assad government in Syria — to threaten Israel with retaliation.”
For Israel and America, it’s a less perilous moment, as we no longer have to worry about our planes getting shot down by Iranian air defenses. “Perilous” seems to be from the point of view of the Iranian terror-sponsoring regime. For America and Iran, it’s a hopeful moment, as we may finally eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat or, even better yet, the terror-sponsoring and oppressive Iranian regime.
The same Times article, by David Sanger and Farnaz Fassihi, reports, “Many Iranians have begun to talk openly about the need for the country to build a weapon since it has proved fairly defenseless in a series of missile exchanges with Israel last year.”
That spins the Iranian nuclear weapon as a matter of Iranian defense, when in fact the Iranians have been pursuing it for decades as part of their goal of wiping Israel off the map. Even the Times article concedes as much later on, reporting that “Iran’s nuclear infrastructure has been operating for decades and is spread around the country, much of it deep underground.”
The same Times article goes on to contend, “If Mr. Trump does not achieve full dismantlement, he will be forced to confront questions about whether he got anything more than the Obama administration got a decade ago. Mr. Trump dismissed that accord as a ‘disaster’ and an embarrassment, noting it would lift all restrictions on Iran’s nuclear production by 2030. Now his challenge, experts say, will be accomplishing more than Mr. Obama did.”
Who are these unnamed “experts”? Even if Trump simply walks away from the negotiating table without giving Iran the sanctions relief that Obama and Biden did, relief that that allowed funds and weapons to flow to Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists, he’ll accomplish more than Obama did. The Obama deal provided a $700 billion subsidy to the terror-sponsoring nation that has vowed to wipe Israel off the map, in exchange for unverifiable short-term promises of a pause in work on nuclear weapons, so “accomplishing more than Mr. Obama did” is a low bar. The Times “experts” apparently don’t include any with that opinion, or, if they do, the Times doesn’t share that view with readers.
In another article, the Times portrays it as a “concession” that Iran is merely willing to talk to America.
Iran has been ardently pursuing negotiations with the US for 30 years, since the Clinton administration, because those negotiations have the potential to pay off in sanctions relief of the sort granted by President Obama’s nuclear deal, which enriched the Iranian regime so that it was able to fund more Hamas and Hezbollah terrorism.
The Times reports in another piece previewing the negotiations, also by Farnaz Fassihi: “On Saturday, Iran and the United States will hold the first round of talks in Oman. If this progresses to face-to-face meetings, it would be a sign of a major concession by Iran, which has insisted it does not want to meet Americans directly.” That’s ridiculous. Merely negotiating isn’t a “major concession”—if anything, it’s a concession by America, which might reasonably take the position that Iran must shutter its nuclear weapons and missiles programs, release political prisoners, and cease its backing of terrorist organizations before earning a meeting with the US For Iran, a “major concession” would be verifiably abandoning the nuclear and missiles programs or ending its hostility toward Israel and America. Simply having a meeting is not a “major concession.” That’s Iranian spin, which the New York Times is passing along unlabeled to readers.
The New York Times has a long and not credible history of cheerleading for Iran nuclear deals with the US. Back in 2022, it relentlessly, breathlessly hyped a deal:
March 8, 2022: “Iran Nuclear Deal Nears Completion…”
January 31, 2022: “US and Allies Close to Reviving Nuclear Deal With Iran….”
January 12, 2022: “…the US and Iran Inch Closer to a Nuclear Pact”
Yet that deal never happened, and the Times never really adequately explained to readers why it so misled them about the likelihood of it.
Ira Stoll was managing editor of The Forward and North American editor of The Jerusalem Post. His media critique, a regular Algemeiner feature, can be found here.
The post New York Times Takes Iran’s Side in US-Iran Talks first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login