Hamas murdered more than 700 people and wounded many thousands during its invasion of Israel on Saturday, Oct. 7. The casualty numbers keep rising. Even for a society that has so long suffered terrorist persecution, this attack was extreme and catastrophic.
Most of the world is disgusted by the terrorist atrocities. Video clips reveal that the barbarians who claim to be freedom fighters stripped and abused civilian women, desecrated their bodies, terrorized screaming children, lined up Holocaust survivors, and dragged them off as captives.
The Hamas fighters and their supporters yelped and danced in delight. It was a grotesque and damnable spectacle. The images testify to an enduring truth that the killers are motivated by a desire to subjugate and slaughter Jews simply because they are Jews.
Jew hatred is enshrined in the Hamas charter, which declares the group’s struggle to be “against the Jews.” This is not about freeing land that was never a country — referred to as Palestine.
It is about venting murderous hatred against a people. Hamas embraces antisemitic falsehoods, even referring in its charter to the discredited Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Jews are plotting to control the world). Pure hatred undergirds what Hamas did and what it has done for decades.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders recognize that the latest mass atrocity has changed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict forever.
It made the long-standing and explicit Hamas goal of annihilating the Jewish nation a looming reality. As long as Hamas exists, its reason for being will be to exterminate Jews.
This is uniting the divided Israeli state to wage a defensive war of survival. This war is necessary, unavoidable — a moral and existential necessity.
As night follows day, there will be politicians and activists on the Left who denounce Israeli retaliation. They will suggest, perhaps after three or four days of Israeli military action in Gaza, that the Jewish state’s response is “disproportionate.” (This is what we are seeing on college campuses throughout the U.S). When this moral casuistry comes, as it will, it should be rejected. Israel must have a free hand to destroy Hamas.
This point must be emphasized because it is common (and uncommonly stupid) to decry the supposed excesses of Israeli military action. The weak clamoring claims that because hundreds of Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket launches tend to kill only a few Israelis, Israel is unjustified in responding with airstrikes that kill larger numbers of Hamas fighters.
This ignores the effect rockets have on Israeli civil society, forcing citizens to abandon their lives for bunkers. No credible democratic government can be expected to tolerate such aggression against its citizens.
Hamas has the intention and capacity to rampage even amid Israeli bunkers. This expands the proper limits of Israeli proportionality. A sustained Israeli campaign to annihilate Hamas, not just its leaders but also its soldiers, support structures, and capabilities, is proportionate.
If the Israelis leave a heap of smoldering ash where Hamas used to be, that would be proportionate. Because Gaza is densely populated and Hamas uses mosques and apartment buildings as bases for its military operations, Israel’s campaign will be bloody, and innocent Palestinians will die. But Israel has the right to wage attritional war against an enemy hellbent on wiping it off the Earth.
Hamas cannot be allowed to manipulate global public relations to its advantage. It is surely banking on a few days of painful conflict, giving way to Israel buckling under international pressure to suspend military action.
The United States must ensure that this does not happen. Whether that means United Nations Security Council vetoes or U.S. action to impose costs on those who try to prevent Israel from defending itself, the U.S. must stand firm.
Unfortunately, I am afraid that what we are seeing is the Biden administration putting pressure on Israel to hold off on a full scale ground attack. I totally disagree with this approach. Hamas needs to be destroyed immediately.
It is not certain that Israel can succeed in eliminating Hamas. But it has the right to try. The more of Hamas’s forces, weapons, and structures that Israel can eliminate, the safer Israelis will be and the better the Middle East will be.
The more of Hamas’s forces, weapons, and structures that survive this war, the greater threat Israelis will continue to face.
Previous conflicts have shown that if Israel imposes sufficient costs on Hamas, its leaders stop the attacks in favor of ceasefires. A far harsher cost must now be imposed to restore deterrence in Israel’s favor.
Like those Palestinian terrorists who hijacked airliners and cruise ships in decades past, Hamas claims that its goal is the liberation of the Palestinian people. We now have proof that Hamas’s strategy for freedom is not one of violence pursuant to political negotiation but rather of genocide.
Now folks, what this boils down to is military teachings going all the way back to the early 1800’s following the Napoleonic Wars.
So how about a little history?
In March 1815, the United States Congress passed a law that allowed for a standing army of up to 10,000 men. Napoleon Bonaparte had amazed the western world by his military victories.
He gained his victories in two ways: first he harnessed the energy of the entire French army behind him, second, he had tremendous strategic abilities, and he was a military genius.
Napoleon’s battles and victories led to the systematic study of warfare. It became the basis for modern military thought.
Two of the leaders in the study of warfare were Antoine Henri Jomini and Karl Von Clausewitz.
Jomini was a general in the French army during the time of Napoleon, he attained the rank of general and in the remaining 54 years of his life, after the Napoleonic war, he served as a military consultant and scholar.
Before his death in 1869, he had written 27 volumes on the wars of Fredrick the Great, The French Revolution, and Napoleon. His greatest work was titled Summary of the Art of War. Jomini said there were fundamental principles for successful war making and that these principles are un-affected by time, place and weaponry. He contended that these principles are applicable in any wartime situation.
His 4 rules were as follows:
- Maneuver to bring the major part of your forces to bare the enemies decisive areas and communications.
- Maneuver to bring your major forces against only part of the enemy’s forces.
- Maneuver to bring your major forces to bare upon the decisive area on the battlefield or of the enemy’s lines.
- Maneuver to bring your mass to bare swiftly and simultaneously.
Bottom Line: Bring your army’s weight to bear at the right time and the right place.
Jomini said your group should include maneuvering whereby your army can successfully dominate three sides of a rectangular zone held by your enemy. To Jomini war is primarily a matter of maneuvering to gain territory in places, not a matter of annihilating the enemy forces.
The other leading scholar in wartime tactics was Major General Karl Von Clausewitz, born in 1780, Clausewitz was admitted to the Berlin war academy for young officers and became the organizer of the Prussian army. His major work was titled On War, published in 1831. Clausewitz first principle is that war is essentially an act of violence. It’s outcome is not determined by specific calculation but by immaterial and moral factors.
He contended great leaders are a matter of insightful genius, not following rules of effective strategy and tactics. The object of war, according to Clausewitz, is to compel your opponent by violent means to bend his will to yours.
Bottom Line: Destroy his armed forces, not seize territory or key locations. (Totally the opposite of Jomini.)
Clausewitz also argued that wars could be determined by political implications, while in most cases wars are won by attacking the enemy’s armed forces.
In certain wars, public opinion can play a major role. Public opinion, put upon the government of the warring power, can cause that government to fold and surrender to its’ enemy. The Vietnam War is a good example of this.
The works of Jomini and Clausewitz became standard reading for Americas service academies.
So, looking at the current conflict between Hamas and Israel, it appears that Israel is taking the approach of Jomini (war is primarily a matter of maneuvering to gain territory in places, not a matter of annihilating the enemy forces).
For now.
On the opposite side of the conflict, it is obvious that Hamas has taken the approach of Clausewitz (compel your opponent by violent means to bend his will to yours).
Now Clausewitz was brilliant when it came to military tactics and made a point of including the comment, “In certain wars, public opinion can play a major role. Public opinion, put upon the government of the warring power, can cause that government to fold and surrender to its’ enemy.
In this age of social media and instant news reporting, his comments on this point cannot be overlooked.
So, I leave you with a few questions.
Should Israel continue their strategic approach to fighting against Hamas? (Jomini)
Or,
Should Israel adopt Clausewitz’ approach and go full force against Hamas and level the Gaza Strip? (compel your opponent by violent means to bend his will to yours).
One final approach.
Will the major powers of the world determine the outcome of the Israeli/Hamas conflict? (“In certain wars, public opinion can play a major role. Public opinion, put upon the government of the warring power, can cause that government to fold and surrender to its’ enemy”.
Clausewitz and Jomini