RSS
Yes, the IDF Is the Moral Army That It Claims To Be
November 2023: An Israeli soldier helps to provide incubators to Al Shifa Hospital in Gaza. Photo: Screenshot
In a recent column in Haaretz, Prof. Yagil Levy claims, based on a “fundamental comparison,” that the IDF in its war in Gaza is not the moral army it purports to be. His claim is based on little evidence from the field and relies mainly on comparisons of numbers.
Levy’s database is simple. As of October 2024, about 43,000 Gazans had been killed in the war (Hamas data), of whom about 17,000 were terrorists (IDF data). There were about 350 IDF casualties. According to Levy, the best way to assess an army’s morality is to examine the ratio between soldiers and civilians killed. According to his calculations, the ratio in the current war is 68 Gazan civilians for every soldier killed. This is a higher ratio than was the case in Operation Protective Edge in Gaza (2014) or in the American battle to capture Fallujah (2004). In Levy’s opinion, this ratio indicates that the IDF “transferred the risk” to Gazan civilians more than Western armies have done in other cases.
Levy wishes to convey the impression that his conclusion is based on thorough research and is therefore well-founded. In practice, Levy’s claim is absurd. Morality, according to Levy, is directly related to the extent of casualties suffered by the military force. In other words, preserving the lives of our fighters, to a certain extent, becomes a moral flaw. According to this logic, sloppy fighting that results in many casualties for our forces would reflect the IDF’s moral virtue.
Levy’s “morality index” is, of course, Hamas’ dream. The enemy built a combat doctrine on the idea of using its own population as a giant human shield. Its strategy was based on the assumption that it could avoid defeat in the war it itself initiated on October 7 through three components: holding hostages to be used as bargaining chips; maximizing deaths among its own population; and maximizing casualties for the IDF.
The comparison to the battle of Fallujah, a small city compared to the densely populated Gaza Strip, is also out of place. The level of organization, planning, and preparation for battle by the rebels there was immeasurably lower than in Gaza, and there was a much more sparse civilian presence as most had fled the city before the battle. In general, it is very difficult to compare battles and numbers, due to both the unique local circumstances of individual battles and the nature of such wars. Numerical data in wars against subversive forces tend to be extremely unreliable. To Levy’s credit, he emphasizes that he relies on Hamas data – data that has been proven false on multiple occasions.
How can one discuss the morality of combat tactics? Prof. Levy, in his usual fashion, treats war as a one-sided event, but this is of course a wrong view. It is of course worth taking into account comparisons of enemy strength and the risk posed to the soldiers.
In the 2016-2017 campaign to liberate Mosul, for example, a city in and around which about 1.8 million people lived, between 10,000 and 40,000 civilians were killed. The lower number was taken from a West Point study, while the higher number is the estimate published by the British Independent on July 19, 2017. About a million people were displaced from their homes and about 1,200 fighters from the coalition against ISIS were killed (and even as many as 8,200, according to the West Point study). The size of the ISIS force defending the metropolis was estimated at between 3,000 to 5,000 fighters. The numbers, as mentioned, are highly questionable. Still, let’s assume that 3,000 ISIS fighters were killed in the battle (though it is more likely that many of them fled), and that only 30,000 civilians were killed in the battle (though the city was completely destroyed and ISIS prevented residents from fleeing). This would mean that for every terrorist fighter killed, the coalition forces (Iraqi forces led by the US military) killed about 10 civilians. In other words, in the campaign to liberate Mosul, the ratio of civilian deaths to enemy kills was 1/10. Even if we use the most conservative end of the estimates, 10,000 civilian deaths, the ratio would still be one enemy fighter to more than three civilians.
The lives of soldiers also have moral value. Twelve hundred coalition fighters killed in the battle for Mosul means almost one for every two enemy fighters. If we use the West Point numbers, the ratio would be reversed and stand at more than two coalition fighters for every enemy fighter.
In Gaza, the IDF faced a dense space that had been prepared for war for almost 20 years, and an organized military force that numbered about 40,000 Hamas fighters and thousands more from other organizations. This force continues to build itself up, recruiting more Gazans, as the war goes on. These are much more difficult conditions (speaking solely in terms of enemy strength, it is 10 times more difficult) than those faced by the liberators of Mosul. Under these extraordinarily difficult conditions, the IDF has managed, according to the numbers used by Levy, to harm no more than 1.5 civilians for every terrorist killed.
To substantiate the quantitative analysis, we will perform a “sanity check” on the numbers by turning to a report from the Costs of War project of the Watson Institute at Brown University from November 2019. The report examines casualties in the 15 years of the war in Iraq. The use of multi-year data can mitigate the distortions created by the extreme uncertainty of numbers from specific battles. According to the Watson report, in the Iraq War (2003-2018), about 200,000 civilians, 40,000 enemy combatants, and 50,000 coalition combatants (nearly 10,000 Americans and the rest local) were killed — that is, five civilians for every enemy combatant and a little more than one coalition combatant for every enemy combatant.
The IDF, according to Yagil Levy, “transferred the risk” to civilians. But the numbers actually indicate an impressive success of the IDF on both a tactical and a moral level. If the IDF had met the Mosul standard, between 51,000 and about 170,000 Gazans would have been killed in addition to the 17,000 terrorists killed (a ratio of between three and 10 civilians for every 17,000 terrorists). In reality — again, according to Levy, who is basing his conclusions on Hamas data — about 26,000 civilians were killed, about half the ratio of the extreme-lowest estimate for Mosul.
According to Levy’s twisted index, in relation to the 17,000 terrorists killed, the IDF should have paid a price of between 8,500 and about 35,000 of its own casualties in order to meet the Mosul standard, or about 20,000 casualties to meet the overall standard of the Iraq War.
By the way, in the Kosovo War (1999), a war conducted by NATO from the air only, without risking ground forces, the studies indicate a ratio of between 1.4 and two civilians killed for every enemy combatant.
The data obtained by the IDF is not make-believe. It is the fruit of enormous, long-term professional effort, and impressive tactical skill achieved in the midst of battle. Systems of intelligence, air, and artillery support have been built in recent years for the benefit of the forces on the ground, as well as an extraordinary advanced system of warning and evacuating enemy populations – evacuations that are carried out at the cost of giving up surprise in battle. The IDF has reached a level of professionalism and skill in all these parameters that no army in the world has ever demonstrated before. Without delving into details, on a principled level, the IDF’s moral choice was simple: to be strict about protecting the lives of enemy civilians through evacuations from the battlefield, and to protect the lives of our fighters through intelligence-based but also relatively permissive cover of fire support towards buildings and infrastructure that had become enemy entrenchment complexes.
The sight of a destroyed Gaza is not pretty. But Gaza is no more destroyed than Fallujah and Mosul after those battles, and a much lower ratio of Gazan civilians and IDF soldiers were killed in the process. In my opinion, destroying infrastructure is an entirely defensible moral choice in exchange for saving human lives.
Let’s return to Levy’s description of the war. He stresses that, unlike in the past, the IDF did not use the “roof-tapping” technique this time to warn residents before bombing buildings. He does not mention that this technique is unique to the IDF and has never been carried out by any other army anywhere else in the world. In the circumstances of this war, the “roof-tapping” technique was not a practical option. Levy also cites unflattering testimonies about IDF conduct. I believe some of the testimonies are true, and this is unfortunate and dangerous. We must fight against this kind of behavior and condemn the helplessness of IDF command in dealing with it. Unfortunately, in this cruel war, these occurrences are not surprising. But Levy does not describe the enormous effort made throughout the war to evacuate the non-combatant population from the battle zones and ensure evacuation routes and humanitarian aid for them prior to the entrance of the IDF. In Fallujah and Mosul, no one gave a thought to systematically moving supplies and fuel into enemy-controlled territory and ensuring the continuity of medical services there. Nor was any concern given to allowing the flow of water, electricity, cellular, or internet services.
This is not the first time Prof. Levy has launched an attack on the idea of tactical efficiency. About two years ago, he attacked Chief of Staff Aviv Kochavi, and me personally, for the effort that was then being made to improve the lethality of IDF forces – that is, their ability to locate an enemy and destroy him quickly and accurately. As Finkel has described, those efforts made an important contribution to the tactical success of the maneuver in Gaza. Levy denounced these efforts as “necrotactics” and accused the IDF of trying to prevent political agreements by improving Israel’s military capability. Levy even accused me of striving for endless wars because my work, as an IDF officer at the time, was striving for a more decisive military capability that would deny the enemy the ability to fire at Israel.
The current war is not being conducted flawlessly. Far from it. We will have many lessons to learn from this long war, and not just from the failure of October 7. There is also room for criticism of deviations from the morality of warfare.
But that is not where Yagil Levy has directed his criticism. In his article in Telem in 2022 and again in his current column in Haaretz, for Levy, the enemy does not exist in war. The enemy is nothing more than a passive subject whom the IDF kills unilaterally and at will. The distorted measure of morality he presents is a denial of our right to self-defense, or at least of our right to fight to win.
Levy does not focus on specific incidents of moral excess that are proper to condemn. He chooses to use a broad moral index that purportedly gives him the right to condemn the morality of the war as a whole. In his view, the deaths of thousands of Gazans used deliberately by Hamas as human shields would be moral if thousands of IDF fighters were killed too.
The “Levy index” of morality requires careless and unsuccessful fighting on our part… that is, defeat. Well, Prof. Levy, the defensive war in Gaza is justified and moral. Fortunately, it is being carried out — at least generally and on a tactical level — in a professional and efficient manner. Your index’s moral compass demands the shedding of more Israeli blood. Its practical meaning is the negation of the morality of defensive war. It is your index, not the IDF’s conduct, that reflects the loss of a moral path.
Brig. Gen. (res.) Eran Ortal recently retired from military service as commander of the Dado Center for Multidisciplinary Military Thinking. His book The Battle Before the War (MOD 2022, in Hebrew) dealt with the IDF’s need to change, innovate and renew a decisive war approach. His next book, Renewal — The October 7th War and Israel’s Defense Strategy, is about to be published by Levin Publications. A version of this article was originally published by Zman Israel and The BESA Center.
The post Yes, the IDF Is the Moral Army That It Claims To Be first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Maccabi Tel Aviv Plays Soccer Game in Empty Hungarian Stadium Amid Security Concerns After Amsterdam Violence
Soccer Football – Europa League – Besiktas v Maccabi Tel Aviv – Nagyerdei Stadion, Debrecen, Hungary – November 28, 2024 General view before the match as the teams and match officials line up. Photo: Reuters/Bernadett Szabo
The Israeli soccer team Maccabi Tel Aviv played a UEFA Europa League match on Thursday against their Turkish rivals Besiktas in an empty stadium in Hungary, which was closed to supporters likely due to security concerns following the recent attack on Israeli soccer fans in Amsterdam.
Maccabi won the match 3-1 in the Nagyerdei Stadium in Debrecen, Hungary, during the fifth week of the UEFA Europa League. Gavriel Kanichowsky secured Israel’s lead in the 23rd minute with a goal, but Besiktas struck back in the 38th minute with a goal by Rafa Silva to tie the score. Maccabi Tel Aviv took the lead again right before halftime by scoring another goal in added time. The Israeli club finished 3-1 with Weslley Patati’s goal in the 81st minute.
Groups of police patrolled outside the venue and the game concluded with no incident, according to the Associated Press.
On Nov. 11, days after the attack against Maccabi Tel Aviv fans in Amsterdam, the European soccer body UEFA announced that this week’s match between Maccabi Tel Aviv and Besiktas, which was originally scheduled to take place in Istanbul, would be moved to Hungary “following a decision by the Turkish authorities not to stage it in Turkey.” Hungary, which has hosted several home games for Israel’s national soccer team since the start of the Israel-Hamas war last year, agreed to host the match and UEFA said it “will be played behind closed doors following a decision of the local Hungarian authorities.”
Maccabi Tel Aviv coach Zarko Lazetic said after Thursday’s match that playing in front of an empty stadium was hard for the team. “We play football because of the fans, to give them some pleasure, some excite(ment) and to be together,” he explained, as reported by the AP.
The match on Thursday was Maccabi Tel Aviv’s first game in Europe since its fans were violently attacked in The Netherlands during the late hours of Nov. 7 and into the early hours of the following morning. After the team competed against the Dutch club Ajax in a UEFA Europa League game in Amsterdam, anti-Israel gangs chased Israeli fans of Maccabi Tel Aviv through the streets of Amsterdam, ran them over with cars, physically assaulted them, and taunted Israeli soccer fans with anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian slogans such as “Free Palestine.” Five people were reportedly hospitalized for injuries.
Leaders in Israel and Europe condemned the premeditated and coordinated attack as antisemitic. Amsterdam’s mayor called the attackers “antisemitic hit-and-run squads” and said the assailants were going “Jew hunting.” Police in Amsterdam said they have already identified, investigated, and even arrested 45 suspects in connection to the incident.
The post Maccabi Tel Aviv Plays Soccer Game in Empty Hungarian Stadium Amid Security Concerns After Amsterdam Violence first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Preacher Slammed for ‘Appalling’ Remarks at Irish Memorial, Accusing Israel of Viewing Itself as a ‘Master Race’
A man walks past graffiti reading ‘Victory to Palestine’ after Ireland has announced it will recognize a Palestinian state, in Dublin, Ireland, May 22, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Hannah McKay
An Irish cleric has come under fire for delivering an antisemitic memorial sermon in which he suggested that Israelis and Jews see themselves as a “master race” that justifies “eliminating” other groups “because they don’t count.”
Reverend Canon David Oxley delivered the sermon last week at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Dublin during a Remembrance Sunday service attended by Irish President Michael Higgins and other high-ranking dignitaries.
Ironically, Oxley had previously revealed familial ties to the Nazis in a sermon delivered at the same event five years ago.
In last week’s remarks, Oxley contended that Israel’s war against the Hamas terrorist group in Gaza represented “the horrible blasphemy of the master race in action.”
“This takes different forms in different times and places, but it is the same horrible idea, that one group of people is intrinsically more valuable than any other. Once that is accepted, then the elimination of others follows as a matter of course — because they don’t count,” he said.
Oxley’s comments sparked strong condemnation from both Israeli officials and Jewish leaders in Ireland.
Israel’s embassy in Ireland said Oxley had “hijacked” the memorial service in favor of an “outrageous and dangerous … libel on the State of Israel.”
The statement published on X also said the diatribe was “divorced from reality” and “willfully ignored the complexities of the Middle East.”
Ireland’s Chief Rabbi Yoni Wieder condemned the Anglican establishment for allowing such remarks, saying it was “an abrogation of moral and religious leadership that such a speech could be delivered by a representative of the Church of Ireland.”
“This type of inflammatory, hateful rhetoric has been used by politicians here countless times over the past year, and we’ve seen it constantly across mainstream Irish media. Now it’s gone beyond politics and journalism and is coming from a senior religious figure, a minister in a Christian Church,” Wieder told The Algemeiner.
“The anti-Israel narrative in Ireland now regularly spills over into overt antisemitism,” he added.
In an open letter addressed to Oxley, Wieder condemned the preacher’s “appalling” accusations.
“You fail to grasp the depth of offense invoked by suggesting that Jewish people have adopted the same murderous outlook that was perpetuated against them by the Nazis,” Wieder wrote.
He also slammed the Anglican cleric’s failure to make any mention of the threats posed by the Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist groups, which “are explicitly committed to destroying Israel and murdering Jews.”
“You claim Israel has a policy of targeting schools, hospitals, and mosques, yet you fail to mention that Hamas purposefully positions itself within and beneath such civilian infrastructure — and they do so precisely because they know it will deter attacks against them. Hamas have openly stated that it is their strategy to place civilians in harm’s way,” the chief rabbi continued.
Wieder called the destruction in Gaza as well as the loss of life “an unbearable humanitarian catastrophe.”
“You and I are united by a desire to see an end to this heartbreaking tragedy. But the situation is also fraught with complexities, which cannot be ignored. Would it not be more honest to acknowledge this, rather than to proffer an simplistic and partisan perspective?” he wrote.
During a 2019 address at the same event, Oxley reportedly disclosed his wife’s ties to the Nazis, according to a report published this week by the British Jewish Chronicle, which cited an article published at the time in the Irish Independent.
In that sermon, also delivered in the presence of the Irish president, Oxley shared that his wife, Amalia, was German and that her family included members who fought for the Third Reich.
“It’s not everyone who can boast that their mother-in-law had Adolf Hitler as a godfather. It’s not everyone who would want to,” he quipped, before going on to praise the Irish citizens who opposed Nazism.
Oxley told the Jewish Chronicle that his comments, which did not represent the Church of Ireland, contained “no hatred” and he stood by them.
“In delivering my sermon, I speak only for myself. I do not speak on behalf of the Church of Ireland, or of St Patrick’s Cathedral. As our church does not believe in infallibility, it is quite conceivable that I am mistaken. No one is obliged to agree with me. However, I am prepared to stand over my remarks,” he said.
“There was no hatred in my sermon, except a hatred of all theories that make one group of people more valuable than another, so that some become expendable,” Oxley added.
A 2021 report by antisemitism researcher David Collier found that traditional Christian attitudes play a significant role in shaping antisemitism in Ireland, with Christian NGOs often playing a role in perpetuating and spreading these sentiments.
“[M]uch of the antisemitism in Ireland appears to be driven from the top down. Regrettably, this certainly seems to be the state of affairs at the moment. Words carry weight, and political and religious leaders in particular ought to remember this,” Wieder said.
He also condemned the Church of Ireland for not distancing itself from Oxley’s comments.
A spokesperson from St Patrick’s Cathedral told the Jewish Chronicle: “In St Patrick’s Cathedral we continue to pray daily for peace in all the countries of the Middle East. We pray fervently for an end to all wars and the human suffering that they bring. Everybody, of all faiths, is welcomed in St Patrick’s Cathedral.”
In Europe, Ireland has been among the fiercest critics of Israel since Oct. 7 of last year, when Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists invaded the Jewish state from neighboring Gaza. The terrorists murdered 1,200 people, wounded thousands more, and abducted over 250 hostages in their rampage, the deadliest single-day massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. Israel responded with an ongoing military campaign in Hamas-ruled Gaza aimed at freeing the hostages and dismantling the terrorist group’s military and governing capabilities.
Earlier this month, the Irish parliament passed a non-binding motion saying that “genocide is being perpetrated before our eyes by Israel in Gaza.” As the measure passed, Irish Foreign Minister Micheal Martin said that the government intended to join South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) before the end of the year.
Around the same time, Ireland accepted the appointment of a full Palestinian ambassador for the first time, confirming that Jilan Wahba Abdalmajid would step up from her current position as Palestinian head of mission to Ireland.
In May, Ireland officially recognized a Palestinian state, prompting outrage in Israel, which described the move as a “reward for terrorism.” According to The Irish Times, Ireland is due to have its presence in Ramallah in the West Bank upgraded from a representative office to a full embassy.
Israel’s Ambassador in Dublin Dana Erlich said at the time of Ireland’s recognition of “Palestine” that Ireland was “not an honest broker” in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
More recently, Irish Prime Minister Simon Harris last month called on the European Union to “review its trade relations” with Israel after the Israeli parliament passed legislation banning the activities in the country of UNRWA, the United Nations agency responsible for Palestinian refugees, because of its ties to Hamas.
Recent anti-Israel actions in Ireland came shortly after the Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance in School Education (Impact-se), an Israeli education watchdog group, released a new report revealing Irish school textbooks have been filled with negative stereotypes and distortions of Israel, Judaism, and Jewish history.
Antisemitism in Ireland has become “blatant and obvious” in the wake of Hamas’s Oct. 7 onslaught, according to Alan Shatter, a former member of parliament who served in the Irish cabinet between 2011 and 2014 as Minister for Justice, Equality and Defense.
Shatter told The Algemeiner in an interview earlier this year that Ireland has “evolved into the most hostile state towards Israel in the entire EU.”
Just last month, an Irish official, Dublin City Councilor Punam Rane, claimed during a council meeting that Jews and Israel control the US economy, arguing that is why Washington, DC does not oppose Israel’s war against Hamas.
The post Preacher Slammed for ‘Appalling’ Remarks at Irish Memorial, Accusing Israel of Viewing Itself as a ‘Master Race’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Candace Owens Barred From New Zealand After Facing Similar Ban From Australia for Comments on Jews, Holocaust
Right-wing political commentator Candace Owens speaks during an event held by national conservative political movement ‘Turning Point’, in Detroit, Michigan, US, June, 14, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Rebecca Cook
Right-wing American political commentator and YouTube content creator Candace Owens has been denied a visa to enter New Zealand because she was banned from the nearby country Australia, immigration officials reportedly said on Thursday.
Owens was scheduled to embark on her first speaking tour across Australia and New Zealand in February and March of next year. The tour includes a stop in Auckland, New Zealand, on Feb. 28 and tickets remain on sale online.
Australia rejected her request for a visa last month. Australian Immigration Minister Tony Burke said the decision was made because of Owens’s past remarks, including her apparent denial that Nazis forcibly did medical experiments on Jews in concentration camps during World War II.
“From downplaying the impact of the Holocaust with comments about [Nazi doctor and war criminal Josef] Mengele through to claims that Muslims started slavery, Candace Owens has the capacity to incite discord in almost every direction,” Burke said at the time. “Australia’s national interest is best served when Candace Owens is somewhere else.
Jock Gilray, a spokesperson for New Zealand’s immigration agency, said on Thursday that Owens was refused an entertainer’s work permit for New Zealand because visas legally cannot be granted to someone who have been banned from another country, The Associated Press reported on Thursday. New Zealand officials did not refer to Owens’s past comments when announcing the denial of her visa.
Owens and the Australia-based promoter behind her speaking tour, Rocksman, have yet to comment on news regarding the ban from New Zealand but said in October that they will file a legal appeal to a federal judge in response to the ban from Australia. Owens commented on Burke’s decision to deny her a visa for Australia and blamed it partially on the alleged influence of the global “Zionist media empire.”
Owens, who has over 3 million subscribers on YouTube and hosts the podcast titled “Candace,” has promoted conspiracy theories and made numerous antisemitic comments about Israel, Jews, Zionists, and the Holocaust. She has also made controversial comments against Black Lives Matter, feminism, vaccines, and immigration.
The post Candace Owens Barred From New Zealand After Facing Similar Ban From Australia for Comments on Jews, Holocaust first appeared on Algemeiner.com.