Thursday, July 03, 2025
From Ian:
When Israeli civilians die, human rights norms disappear
When Israeli civilians die, human rights norms disappear
No human rights organisation, no professor of international law, no outraged cultural figure signing tendentious statements for publication in this or that Review of Books thought that the arguments about consequence or hypocrisy had any bearing on their principles when it came to Gazans.Iran Begins New Long Game of Nuclear Hide-and-Seek
Not only was it irrelevant that the war was launched by Gazans on October 7 or that the Palestinian public overwhelmingly supported the massacre (no protests were registered anywhere in the Palestinian Territories or, for that matter, anywhere in the Arab World as a whole), but the lack of consequentialist thinking held for the duration of the war. None of the humanitarians who vociferously oppose the Israeli blockade demand, say, the immediate and unconditional release of the Israeli hostages as a way of ending it. And no western “international law expert” wags their finger at Palestinians suffering in Gaza and says, “Oh now you don’t like civilian casualties? You felt otherwise on the Seventh.”
The hospital version of this argument shows just how problematic the whole claim is. The IDF operated around (and under) hospitals where Hamas militants were hiding, holding hostages, storing weapons, and directing offensive operations. The Iranian missile that fell on Soroka hospital fell on a building treating patients. No matter. The Israelis have no moral standing to be upset about an attack on their hospital when they have attacked Palestinian hospitals.
There’s just one problem with this argument – that is, one problem beside the overall moral obscenity of it. The first hospital to be attacked in the October 7 War was attacked on October 7, and it was not in Gaza, but rather the Barzilai hospital in Ashkelon, which was hit by a rocket during the initial assault that started the whole war. And among the first targets to be hit in the kibbutzim that were invaded that deadly morning were the ambulances that otherwise would have evacuated some of the wounded.
These facts never factored into the condemnations of Israeli military action around Gaza hospitals. Which is entirely understandable as, unlike Hamas’ use of those hospitals for military ends, it has no bearing on the justice or injustice of any IDF operation. On the contrary. It is safe to assume that the self-appointed arbiters of human rights would be appalled if one of their own mocked pictures of a damaged hospital in Gaza with a reference to the Barzilai rocket attacks and a tweet about how “finally Gazans found a hospital bombing they oppose,” though versions of this were the basis for numerous clever posts and a punchline on Radio 4’s Friday Night Comedy.
A moral economy that allots all the outrage for the Israelis who were the targets of a murderous attack and leaves none leftover for those, whether Iranian, Palestinian, or Lebanese, who attacked them, cannot be the basis for global norms in war or in peace.
On Wednesday, Iran's president signed a new law suspending all cooperation with UN nuclear inspectors. A new chapter in the quarter-century saga of Iran's nuclear aspirations may now be starting, one in which the country's main objective is to keep the world guessing about how fast it can recover from a devastating setback - and whether it has the uranium, the hidden technological capability, and the will to race for a bomb.How the West Got the Israel-Iran War So Wrong
No regional war broke out, as past presidents who considered similar military action always feared. Even skeptics acknowledge that the 18,000 centrifuges that were producing near-bomb-grade uranium at a record pace are now inoperable.
President Trump has hinted about new negotiations that could lead to the lifting of sanctions - presumably only in return for Iran's commitment to dismantle whatever is left of its nuclear program and let inspectors verify that work. But that does not seem to match the mood in Tehran right now. Trump has also said he is "absolutely" willing to strike again if there are signs that Iran is trying to rebuild its capabilities.
After the strike, Iran will keep shuffling its nuclear assets around, as the Mossad, American intelligence agencies and UN inspectors will constantly be looking for human intelligence or satellite evidence of the tunnels and caves where the projects might be hidden. With Iran's leaders portraying the end of the conflict with Israel as a victory, and downplaying the damage done by the U.S. strikes, experts see little hope of an accord that would satisfy both sides.
In the early days of this round of the ongoing Israel-Iran combat, pundits lined up to claim that the Middle East was on the brink of a full-blown regional war. Tehran would unleash waves of asymmetric revenge through a web of proxies from Beirut to Sanaa. Some predicted a war lasting years.
Yet 12 days later, no Arab nation has joined the fray. Oil markets remain remarkably steady. Tehran has neither launched a regional war nor exacted the cataclysmic reprisals so confidently predicted. There was one small attack on one U.S. base. In fact, the response from Iran - a heavily telegraphed barrage largely intercepted by air defenses - resembled a performance: a bruised regime saving face.
The collective miscalculation was built on the assumption that Israel's resolve would provoke uncontrollable chaos. That Iran's threats were not bluff but gospel. But in this case, Iran's nuclear infrastructure was targeted, its prestige was wounded, yet it responded with a gesture, not a war, because it was outmatched and cornered.
In certain strategic environments, force, credibly and appropriately projected, is more stabilizing than endless rounds of negotiation that allow nuclear weapons to be created. Western prediction models are broken. They are reactive, pessimistic and addicted to narratives of collapse. They interpret every act of strength as provocation and every moment of calm as fleeting illusion. But sometimes, bold action, especially when it is disciplined, proportionate and backed by capability, resets the game.
The Western delusion is that process is always preferable to power, that negotiation is morally superior to preemption. But when executed with precision, intelligence and legitimacy, preemption prevents greater wars. It reinstates deterrence. And it spares civilians, infrastructure and economies the toll of prolonged conflict. Restrained power can be more humane than endless diplomacy, especially when that diplomacy serves only to delay the inevitable, embolden aggressors and paralyze allies.
Buy 
