I was going through some old notes when I came across the following passage. Unfortunately, I failed to record the source, so I apologize to its author or authors:
One of the major questions arising from the need for Jews to defend the Jewish community was whether to take retaliatory measures against the Arab population, on the pattern of the Arab attacks against the Jews. From the first, the commanders of the Haganah opposed such tactics on moral, strategic and political grounds: morally, they opposed any attempt to punish innocent people for acts of the Arab guerrilla forces; strategically, they doubted the value of such actions, and feared that they would lead to an escalation of intercommunal strife; politically, they believed that the moral stance of the Jewish community was an invaluable asset in international public opinion, and in the eyes of the British legislators who controlled the fate of the issue. The policy which stemmed from these arguments was known as “self-restraint.”
That policy, havlagah, was first adopted by the Haganah in the mid-1930s during the Arab revolt of 1936-1939. Reading the passage today in the context of the war with Hamas raises the question of whether Israel has remained true to the doctrine.
Critics of Israel’s behavior argue that it has forsaken self-restraint for recklessness. Following the Hamas- and Palestinian-led massacre of 1,200 men, women and children on Oct. 7, they say a traumatized nation responded (albeit weeks later, the ground offensive began on Oct. 27) with vengeance—razing Gaza, engaging in the wanton killing of innocent Palestinians, and thereby forfeiting the moral high ground and squandering the sympathy it initially enjoyed.
But destruction alone does not answer the question.
Wars are not judged by whether civilians die, terrible as every civilian death is. Nor can proportionality be determined simply by comparing the number killed on one side with the number killed on the other. The relevant questions are harder: What was the military objective? Was the target legitimate? What civilian harm was anticipated? What precautions were taken? And was the expected civilian harm excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated?
That distinction is crucial in Gaza to judge whether Israel has exercised or abandoned the doctrine of havlagah.
If Israel were indeed bent on a campaign of unrestrained revenge, then hundreds of thousands of Palestinians would be dead. By repeating the Hamas-invented figures—ignoring that some 25,000 of the dead were terrorists—the Israel Defense Forces come off as the most incompetent army in history by failing to kill any combatants. The media has propagated this lie. Who can blame readers of The New York Times and other media who have been led to believe Israel has done nothing but kill thousands of innocent Gazans?
The laws of war recognize that civilians may die. The legal question is whether the anticipated civilian harm would be excessive relative to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
We know that Israel has been far more restrained than its critics acknowledge. Missions are often aborted if civilians are at risk; various means have been used to warn them to find shelter, even though its own forces were often at greater risk and terrorists had the chance to slip away. Military experts have pointed out how Israel has done more than any other army to protect civilians. They are rarely quoted, nor are those who document how Hamas forces civilians to stay in harm’s way. Instead, Israel is accused of trying to maximize casualties while simultaneously being criticized for warning civilians to evacuate before an impending attack.
The latest calumny now being popularized by the film “NAZA” uses anonymous sources to claim that Israel is using artificial intelligence on the battlefield to identify targets without regard to civilian casualties, essentially giving up even the pretext of havlagah. The filmmakers also exploit the public fear of AI acting on its own without regard to human life.
It’s no surprise that the IDF now uses AI, as do other militaries. Contrary to the plot of “NAZA,” however, computers are not running amok. Humans make final targeting decisions. AI may help estimate collateral damage, a process humans previously did without such assistance.
The critics would have you believe armies that anticipate civilian casualties decide not to engage in those operations; however, war is not about the avoidance of all civilian deaths. The laws of war recognize that civilians may die. The legal question is whether the anticipated civilian harm would be excessive relative to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
That does not absolve Israel of responsibility when mistakes are made, intelligence is faulty, or commanders make bad decisions. Nor should every allegation of misconduct be dismissed merely because it comes from a critic of Israel. Individual incidents should be investigated, and violations, when established, should be punished.
But neither should anonymous testimony, however disturbing, automatically be transformed into proof of a systematic policy of murdering civilians.
The filmmakers, like other critics, have a double standard. There is no recognition that Israel is fighting an enemy that exercises no restraint. Havlagah was based partly on the principle that Jews should distinguish between attackers and innocent civilians. Hamas obliterated that distinction on Oct. 7. Its terrorists deliberately attacked civilian communities, murdered families in their homes, took civilians hostage, and killed Jews and non-Jews alike. Israel built shelters for its civilians; Hamas built tunnels for its fighters. Hamas prepared extensively for the Israeli response it knew its attack would provoke but did not construct a comparable network of shelters for Gaza’s civilian population.
It is Hamas that wants to maximize civilian casualties for propaganda purposes.
Criticism of Israel is largely detached from the reality confronting Israelis after Oct. 7. It is easy to prescribe restraint in the abstract. It is harder when you were dancing at the Nova festival when terrorists arrived or visiting a kibbutz overrun by Hamas. Critics don’t think about being raped or burned alive or decapitated. Since they cannot imagine being victimized, they cannot conceive of how they would react.
Let’s not forget that the number of civilian casualties could have been reduced dramatically if former President Joe Biden had not made a deal with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi to prevent Palestinians from leaving the Gaza Strip. It is Hamas that wants to maximize civilian casualties for propaganda purposes, and Biden played into their hands.
And the media fell for it.
You don’t see any pictures of Hamas fighters engaging in terror acts: no shooting of missiles. No gunfights. No holding of hostages. No hiding in hospitals, schools and mosques.
Watch the footage Hamas terrorists themselves recorded on Oct. 7. Look at what happened in the kibbutzim and at the Nova festival. Listen to the survivors and the families of the hostages. Even a dramatization such as episodes 7 and 8 of “Fauda” can provide a glimpse—only a glimpse—of the terror that Israelis experienced.
Any documentary or report on the war with Hamas that does not start with the events of Oct. 7 cannot be taken seriously because no one can understand the Israeli mindset in the last three years without seeing it. Only after bearing witness can you appreciate the extent to which Israel has maintained its policy of havlagah.
Still, the question may be asked whether the principle should be followed given today’s circumstances. Must Israel be constrained by moral, strategic and political considerations when confronted by an enemy that deliberately strikes civilians in the most brutal way? The IDF remains committed to distinguishing between the guilty and the innocent; however, it’s a fantasy to believe that war can be fought without civilian casualties.
Havlagah is not the refusal to fight. It is refusing to let your enemy’s brutality determine how you fight.
