Thread by @SpencerGuard

What are Israel's choices in Gaza? The insanity of double standards and uninformed analysis about the war in Gaza.🧵 1/21

War is uncertain by its nature. It is human, it is political, and it absolutely uncertain. To say there is only one way for the war in Gaza to end is not connected to the complete history of war. 2/21

To say Israel has achieved its goals and should end the war is not true and often disconnected from reality. To say Israel can’t achieve its goals, is not true and full of double standards. 3/21

From October 8th on, Israel's goals in Gaza (according to Israel's political leaders that set these goals i.e. Prime Minister, Minster of Defense, and war cabinet) have NOT changed. They are:
- Return all hostages.
- Dismantle Hamas's military capabilities and end its political rule in Gaza.
- Ensure that Gaza never poses a threat to Israel. 4/21

These three goals are both legal and just in the aftermath of the October 7 attack, when Hamas and other forces from Gaza invaded Israel. In response, Israel exercised its rights under Article 51 of the UN Charter and declared a self-defense war against Hamas. This legal framework affirms the inherent right of a nation to defend itself following an armed assault, and Israel’s military operations in Gaza are grounded in that right. 5/21

How Israel could, and still can, achieve these goals has been widely debated. Many of the commentators discussing strategy, context, history, laws, and progress rely on double standards applied only to Israel. Their arguments are often filled with fallacies about war, strategy, tactics, geopolitics, and history, or are completely disconnected from the political and military realities on the ground. 6/21

Here are some of the double standards, but not all, as there are many, reserved only for Israel regarding what a nation can or cannot do in war and how wars are assessed 7/21 :

- A neighboring country not allowing civilians to evacuate combat areas, thus forcing Israel to fight Hamas while it uses its entire population and infrastructure as a human shield. Double standard with no historical comparison. 8/21

- Measuring legal adherence to the laws of war by daily casualty counts from the enemy force (an international terrorist group), or by many other data points, then using statistical manipulation and faulty comparisons to dissimilar situations for the purpose of politically and socially delegitimizing Israel’s goals. This is also called effects-based condemnation, meaning that no matter the context of what Israel is doing to prevent civilian harm, or what Hamas is doing to increase civilian harm, only the effects of the war are judged. These effects are often based on false or manipulated data. This is not how war is assessed for any other nation. This is not how the laws of war apply to any other nation. It is a double standard. 9/21

- Demanding a day-after plan before the enemy military and government are defeated. The idea that, before the ruling power and opposing military are defeated, through force or surrender, the attacking military must present a plan for what power will replace it is a double standard. Replacement comes after defeat, not before. 10/21

- Providing humanitarian aid to the enemy's population during the war, while battles are ongoing, while the enemy continues to control territory, while it is still fighting, launching attacks, and holding hostages. Israel has done this for moral reasons and to balance military objectives with humanitarian imperatives. But the idea that it is a legal requirement is a double standard. 11/21

- Dictating to a nation which legal tools it is allowed to use to fight an enemy. For example, criticizing the use of large-diameter munitions in an urban area, such as a 2,000-pound bomb, even when the enemy is embedded in urban terrain and operating from fortified tunnels that require deep penetration. This is a lawful and necessary tool in many conflicts. Yet when Israel uses it, it is singled out. That is a double standard. 12/21

- Claiming there will be no population displacement or border change. The idea that a terrorist army directed by the government of Hamas could cross a sovereign border, invade a country, commit atrocities, take hundreds of hostages, and that in the war that follows there would be no voluntary or temporary displacement or any border change is a double standard. The law of war prevents forced displacement, not voluntary or temporary displacement during wartime. 13/21

- Not allowing civilians the option to escape the war. Preventing civilians who want to leave Gaza from doing so is a unprecedented double standard. For Israel and the people of Gaza. 14/21

- Tying a nation’s legitimate war goals to an unrelated political issue. Despite the context of the war, the attacked country is pressured to make concessions to another group that has refused international mediation. Forcing Israel to link the war against Hamas in Gaza that it did not start to the unrelated political effort of establishing a Palestinian state with a separate entity, the Palestinian Authority, is a double standard. 15/21

So, if even a few of the double standards were removed from the conversation, there are many ways Israel could have, and still can, achieve its goals in Gaza, such as 16/21:

- Move all civilians out of harm’s way. Temporarily displace civilians from combat areas. All civilians who want to leave should be allowed to leave. 17/21

- Destroy Hamas’s will to continue the war through force, using continued joint military operations. Hamas can absolutely be defeated by military power. 18/21

- Hamas surrenders. Through a combination of military and political tools, what remains of Hamas’s political and military leadership agrees to end the war, return all hostages, disarm, and relinquish political and military control over the Gaza Strip. 19/21

- Once Hamas is defeated, Israel and others begin post-conflict operations. These can include building secure zones or islands of Palestinian-led governance, whether through multiple localized authorities or the creation of a new centralized power. This phase can also include reconciliation efforts, disarmament, demilitarization, and deradicalization programs. 20/21

Thoughts are my own. Thank you for your attention to this matter! 21/21