Martin Sherman: America 2024: Is antisemitism “the point?”
Antisemitism as “a point”Richard Kemp: The US should sanction the ICC
Thus, while it is true that the Convention did not permit a Palestinian Arab speaker to address the Convention, this was overshadowed entirely by the fact that the Jewish members were compelled to assemble in hiding to conduct Jewish-related affairs for fear of disruption by anti-Jewish mobs.
One can only wonder in troubled bewilderment what departing president, Joe Biden, had in mind when he conceded that the pro-Hamas hooligans, demonstrating outside the Convention hall, “had a point”—as they raucously expressed their “outrage” at the IDF response to the murder and mutilation, the ravages and rapes of seniors and of infants, of men and of women that comprised the peaceful population of the towns, villages and agricultural communities in the Gaza Envelope.
Indeed, two aspects underscore the gravity of the unfolding metamorphosis: The one is the timing; the other is the substance.
With regard to the timing, this shift in sentiment seems particularly incongruous, coming as it does when the Palestinian Arabs seem more worthy than ever of censure and sanction, rather than support and sympathy. Indeed, this is all the more astounding since this emerging hostility comes hard on the heels, not only of the unspeakable barbarity and brutality on the part of the Gazan Arabs, but also the joyous embrace with which the appalling atrocities were celebrated by the vast majority of Palestinian Arabs, in general.
Crucible, not victim
Moreover, it is difficult to separate out between the moral culpability of the general populace in Gaza and their elected leadership. Indeed, contrary to popular belief, the overall population in Gaza is not the hapless victim of its radical Hamas leaders. Rather, it is the crucible in which Hamas was forged and the incubator from which it emerged.
Thus, Hamas is not an unwelcome imposition on an otherwise placid population, but an authentic reflection of the innermost desires of an inherently savage horde.
But rather than side unreservedly with Israel, the Democratic party and the Biden administration have chosen to take unprecedented measures against the elected government of a friendly nation.
Thus, with unspeakable impudence, and cynical exploitation of his Jewish origins, Democratic Senate leader, Chuck Schumer, purported to know better than the Israeli electorate itself what is good for it. In a desperate attempt to kowtow to his party’s increasingly assertive radical wing, he accused the elected Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, of being an “obstacle to peace”, calling for new elections to replace him—despite the fact that, even today, he is the most popular politician in the country. This, of course, is something Schumer would never have presumed to do with any other democratic ally of the US - or even any non-democratic adversary. Thus, somehow, Schumer found no reason to urge the removal of any member of the brutal Iranian regime in Tehran. Go figure.
Pompous pretentiousness
Arguably even more perturbing is the initiative by the Biden State Department to impose punitive sanctions on rightwing Israeli citizens—and to threaten sanctions on duly-elected senior ministers(Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir). Stunningly, none of the sanctioned individuals or organizations have been accused—never mind, convicted--of any current transgressions by Israeli law-enforcement agencies. With unmatched audacity, the Administration pompously proclaimed: "The United States remains deeply concerned about [Jewish] extremist violence and instability in the 'West Bank', which undermines Israel’s own security” neglecting of course any mention of how Arab extremism might impact Israel’s security.
Then, with breathtaking arrogance, it announced that if Israel does not act in accordance with its wishes, the US will take it upon itself to deal with “recalcitrant” Israeli citizens—with no commensurate intentions regarding lawless Arabs, who regularly stone, firebomb, and shoot at Israeli citizens: "We strongly encourage the government of Israel to take immediate steps to hold these individuals and entities accountable. In the absence of such steps, we will continue to impose our own accountability measures."
One can only imagine the outcry that would ensue should Washington threaten to intervene and supersede the functioning of the national law enforcement authority in any other country—especially if US citizens were not directly impacted by the action or inaction of that authority within the area of its jurisdiction.
Perverse and paradoxical
Furthermore, in terms of substance, Democratic support for the Palestinian Arab cause seems highly incongruous. After all, for anyone who ostensibly embraces progressive liberal values, there should be little attraction in the establishment of any Palestinian entity, especially a theocratic tyranny, such as a Hamas-ruled enclave in Gaza. Indeed, why would the party endorse establishing (yet another) homophobic, misogynistic Muslim-majority tyranny, whose hallmarks would be the suppression of women, the oppression of homosexuals, and the repression of non-Muslims and political opponents?
Clearly then, there is nothing that corresponds with the values to which the Democratic party professes to subscribe and the support for gender discrimination, gay persecution, religious intolerance, and political oppression that would characterize any self-governing Palestinian political entity.
So, if the new surge of support for Hamas and Gaza is antithetical to values allegedly dear to the Democratic party, but is manifestly detrimental to the Jewish state and by association, Jews who identify with it, what could be the motivation behind this malign shift?
Antisemitism certainly seems a highly plausible answer.
We know of no other country that has been treated anything like this. For example Australia and the UK conducted war crimes investigations that took many years and were not plagued with intervention by the ICC. Israel, though, must apparently be subjected to special treatment. Arrest warrants were demanded by Khan seven months after the start of the conflict which triggered his intervention.Debunking the myth: Inside the IDF's efforts to minimize civilian casualties
An ICC inquiry is one thing. Issuing arrest warrants against national leaders is something entirely different. In his latest submission to the ICC, Khan justifies his request solely on the basis that arresting Netanyahu and Gallant ‘could avert further harm to the victims who remain in Gaza and to those who were forced to leave but continue to suffer physical and mental harm’. That is manifestly absurd and Khan’s application should be immediately dismissed on that ground alone.
Does he expect Israel will arrest and hand over its Prime Minister and Defence Minister because he says so? Or perhaps he thinks the ministers will travel to the territory of a member state that will incarcerate them and send them into his clutches. Obviously neither would happen, but if it did, does Khan actually believe their replacements would end the war (read: surrender to Hamas)?
Khan must know none of this is realistic, and therefore his so-called justification is entirely without merit. The truth is that his arrest warrants are nothing other than a performative charade, intended to insult Israel and undermine its sovereignty and legitimacy.
We said earlier that this whole episode is not just a danger to Israel but to the world. Of course the inclusion of Hamas terrorists in Khan’s warrant application is yet more theatre, intended to pretend to the world that the ICC is ‘even-handed’. No extremist group or despotic regime has ever been or is ever going to be in any way deterred by the grandly-gowned justices at The Hague. Quite the reverse. Hamas and its kind will be emboldened by the knowledge that their enemies are vulnerable to legal action by the ICC while by definition they themselves remain inviolate. Khan pretty much confirmed this by not even bothering to adduce any justification for the Hamas arrest warrants, such as preventing further atrocities against Israel.
Like it or not, the only way to deal with such bloodthirsty terrorist gangs is by military force, not by lawsuits handed down with fanfare by the ICC. Paradoxically, Khan’s ill-judged machinations serve to deny effective military action by intimidating democratic national leaders who need to use force for the legitimate defence of their countries.
If the ICC’s ironically unaccountable judges succumb to Khan’s demand, we will have further confirmation that they are driven by a political agenda lacking legal logic or reason. Only the US can do anything about that. President Biden and Secretary Blinken both condemned Khan’s arrest bid in May but seem unwilling to go beyond words. Previously, the US sanctioned ICC officials for attempting to bring their countrymen before the court. In June, the US House of Representatives voted to pass legislation sanctioning the ICC for its action against Israel. Negotiations with the Senate to get that bill passed should be renewed with urgency. As with so much else in this anti-western political warfare campaign, Israel is the canary in the coal mine. If this precedent is allowed to stand, US political and military leaders will be back on the ICC’s menu and the world will be a more dangerous place.
The Israeli Air Force was a pioneer in integrating computers into bombers, drastically improving the precision of airstrikes. By the 1990s, these computers became small enough to be installed directly into bombs, leading to the development of precision-guided munitions (PGMs). The IDF has increasingly adopted this technology, particularly since the mid-1990s, to minimize collateral damage. For instance, during the First Gulf War in 1991, the U.S. used smart weapons in just 8% of strikes, but by later conflicts like 2008's Operation Cast Lead, nearly 100% of the munitions used were smart bombs. In the current war, Israel has not only employed smart bombs to target terrorists embedded within civilian populations—a Hamas war crime in itself—but has also integrated new technologies to enhance the accuracy of ground troops and artillery.
One such innovation is the Dagger sight by Smart Shooter, which uses computer vision and artificial intelligence to ensure that every shot is precise, effectively turning each soldier into a sniper and significantly reducing the risk of hitting unintended targets.
Another game-changing technology is the Iron Sting mortar, developed by Elbit. Unlike conventional mortars, which are generally imprecise, the Iron Sting is accurate to within meters. It relies on inputted coordinates rather than electro-optical imaging, significantly reducing collateral damage and the likelihood of civilian casualties.
Throughout the war, there were several well-known instances where Israel targeted terrorists in schools, with international media echoing Hamas propaganda by claiming that Israel killed many civilians during these strikes.
For example, on August 10, Israel targeted terrorists at Tabeen School. The Guardian reported: “At least 80 people have been killed in Israeli missile strikes on a school compound in Gaza City, according to the territory’s civil defense service.” In reality, the IDF targeted 20 terrorists, causing minimal damage to the school, and provided evidence demonstrating that the inflated number of casualties was highly unlikely. The IDF even posted the names and photos of those killed in the attack.
The Tabeen School strike is just one example of numerous propaganda attempts by Hamas and their allies to tarnish Israel’s image and further their strategy of maximizing civilian casualties to pressure Israel on the world stage.
A comparative perspective
These practices have enabled the IDF to achieve remarkable success on the battlefield while minimizing civilian casualties. The IDF reports that it has eliminated over 14,300 terrorists. Even if we accept the inflated figures from the UN's Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), which are based on numbers provided by Hamas, the civilian death toll would be around 24,000. This results in a ratio of approximately 1.5 civilians killed for every one combatant. In comparison, the Soviet-Afghan War had a ratio of 10 to 1, and the Biafran War had a ratio of 15 to 1.
When we consider the total civilian death toll, which stands at around 26,000 (including Israeli civilians), this conflict is far less deadly for civilians than other recent wars. For example, the war in Yemen has resulted in over 367,000 civilian deaths, the Syrian Civil War has claimed over 617,000 lives and the Liberian Civil War left more than 200,000 civilians dead.
The IDF's efforts to avoid civilian casualties stand in stark contrast to these conflicts, demonstrating a commitment to minimizing harm even in the midst of intense warfare.