Israel Weighs 'Collateral Damage' in Gaza Amid Calls for Restraint
The concept of 'collateral damage,' or 'Nezak Agabi' (NAZ) in Hebrew, refers to the permissible killing of innocent civilians during military operations against legitimate targets. This calculation, involving a grim accounting of lives, is approved by military lawyers attached to operational commanders. The final decision to strike rests with the commander, informed by the legal advisor's assessment of potential collateral damage. Since October 7th, the scope of such approvals has broadened significantly, a shift attributed to two key factors: the collective trauma from the Hamas massacre, fueling a determination to prevent recurrence, and the inherent nature of Hamas, an organization deeply embedded within Gaza's civilian population and utilizing civilian infrastructure. This integration makes significant collateral damage unavoidable when fighting Hamas. The article posits that commanders who use human shields, often women and children, cynically expose them to harm, making the collateral damage a form of 'immunity chain.' The responsibility for civilian deaths, therefore, lies not only with the legal and military decision-makers but also with the combatants themselves.
Beyond the formal legal framework, the article points to an overly 'light trigger finger' on the ground, driven by anger and a desire for revenge. Soldiers, sometimes identifying less as the 'Israel Defense Forces' and more as an 'army of God and vengeance,' may fire at Gazans who cross ill-defined lines or rush supply trucks. These actions, distinct from approved collateral damage calculations, contribute to the rising death toll. The Israeli government and military maintain there is no systematic policy of killing innocents, attributing civilian deaths to either planned strikes against Hamas leadership or to battlefield errors, misidentifications, return fire, and other chaotic incidents. They emphasize that these occur against the backdrop of justified anger and the necessity of operating against an enemy embedded in the civilian population.
The article questions whether the final toll of innocent lives exceeds or falls below a legitimate legal and moral threshold, acknowledging that Israelis are divided on this issue. Some believe all Gazans are 'involved' and deserving of death, while others argue Israel has used disproportionate force. The official Israeli stance denies disproportionate force, adhering to legal combat doctrines and the constraints of fighting an embedded enemy, while acknowledging potential exceptions in the field. The ultimate legal judgment, the article suggests, may come from international tribunals, though it cautions that international judges are also influenced by political agendas and subjective moral views, which could work for or against Israel.
