The Trouble With a Gaza Siege

Israel plans the opposite of smart sanctions

Photo by mohammed al bardawil on Unsplash

Israel is responding to Hamas’ surprise attack by preparing for a ground invasion. Until that happens, however, the Netanyahu government’s principal policy response will apparently be siege warfare.

According to Semafor’s Jenna Moon:

Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant announced Monday that he had ordered a ”complete siege" on Gaza, two days after Hamas launched the biggest attack on Israel in decades.

Gallant said that Hamas-run Gaza would be totally blockaded: No electricity, food, or fuel will be allowed to enter the area. “We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly,” he said. Later, Energy Minister Israel Katz ordered water supplies to be cut off.

The Times of Israel’s Emanuel Fabian quotes Gallant as saying, “We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.” I’ve seen other translations saying, “we are fighting beasts” instead. Either way it sounds real bad.

Meanwhile, the Biden administration has made it clear that it has Israel’s back in terms of its response. According to the Economist:

The White House made no mention of a need for restraint or for limiting Palestinian casualties. “Israel has the right to defend itself and its people. Full stop,” said Mr Biden. The Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, spoke of the need for the “highest standards” to protect civilians, but his department’s tweets calling for restraint were deleted as Israel’s rhetoric hardened.

The hard-working staff here at Drezner’s World would not want to trade places with either Netanyahu or Biden right now. The Israeli leader is facing multiple no-win scenarios in responding to Hamas’ acts of terrorism. I do know a few things about sieges, however — and it is worth understanding very clearly the ethical and practical effects of imposing them.

Ethically, sieges of territories containing armed combatants and civilians are on shaky ground. Writing for the International Committee of the Red Cross, Maxime Nijs recently noted the slipperiness of how sieges are treated within the laws of armed combat: “While the most apparent restriction of siege warfare is provided by the prohibition against starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, under the prevailing restrictive interpretation of this prohibition sieges are considered lawful as long as their purpose is to achieve a military objective and not to starve the civilian population.”

This is where Gallant’s quote becomes somewhat disturbing. Whatever one thinks of Hamas — and most of my thoughts are not fit to print — the fact remains that the Gaza strip is littered with innocent civilians who were already living under pretty tight economic sanctions. The doctrine of proportionality suggests limits on the extent of the siege relative to the policy gains that are being attempted. But the concept of proportionality is absent in the rhetoric of Israeli policymakers.

It could be argued that from a utilitarian perspective, a siege that leads to a quick victory might be an instance in which the ends justify the means. There is no reason to believe this will be quick, however. Even the most comprehensive embargo is not going to force Hamas into acquiescence. For them, this is a zero-sum conflict in which any concession is doubly painful, because it means Israel wins. Furthermore, from Hamas’ perspective, a brutal, comprehensive embargo serves their strategic ends. The suffering of innocents at the hands of Israelis will inflame Arab populations and drive a wedge between Israel and its Arab partners. The embargo will also be unlikely to facilitate Israel’s ground assault; I suspect Hamas will be resisting in a manner that renders them insensitive to the effect of sanctions. Finally, because Hamas will be the only actor within Gaza capable of busting the sanctions, it will become even more powerful vis-a-vis ordinary Palestinians.

Israel wants to restore deterrence with armed Palestinians groups, and it feels the only way to do that is through the brutal application of force. There is a chance that they are right — although the history of sieges suggests otherwise. What is undeniably true is that Israel’s tactics will lead to more civilian suffering. That gives me serious pause about what is to come. I share Jonathan Chait’s concerns:

I simultaneously believe that the use of human shields should not exempt terrorist groups from reprisal and that the deaths of innocent people are tragic. A moral equation that does not have human beings on both sides is a formula for murder.

Watching the pro-Palestinian cause proceed from implying support for terrorism to directly expressing such support should give some pause to the war-hawk faction. If you hear your allies making claims that place no weight at all on the value of innocent Palestinian lives, you should understand they are laying the groundwork for horrors that will follow.

I hope the IDF operation in Gaza is competently executed. Given the Netanyahu government’s rhetoric, however, I have my doubts. This is a ruling coalition perfectly willing to ignore and belittle the advice of experts. Which means a military response that is likely to be suboptimal. Or, to quote Julia Ioffe’s blunt assessment: “I’m bracing myself for what will continue to come in the next days and weeks: death, death, and more death.”