NAZA: A critique of a one-sided account of the Gaza war

The article examining the documentary NAZA raises serious questions about Israeli military conduct in Gaza. But its moral argument is weakened by a selective treatment of the events, responsibilities and circumstances surrounding the war.

The starting point must be 7 October 2023. Hamas-led attackers deliberately massacred Israeli civilians and abducted 251 people, including children and the elderly. Hostages were held for prolonged periods under inhumane conditions. Israel had a legitimate right to defend its citizens and confront the organisation responsible.

That right did not give Israel unlimited freedom of action. Civilian protection, proportionality and precautions remained obligations. However, allegations that Israel pursued the deliberate mass murder of civilians require evidence beyond casualty figures, anonymous testimony or the use of AI-assisted targeting systems.

The article gives little meaningful attention to Hamas’s responsibility for initiating the war, taking hostages and conducting military operations in a densely populated territory. Nor does it adequately consider Israel’s advance warnings before certain strikes or its efforts to facilitate humanitarian aid, including food and essential supplies. These matters deserve examination alongside the severe restrictions on aid that Israel also imposed.

One particularly important omission is the failure of Gaza’s Arab neighbours to provide a substantial refuge for civilians fleeing the fighting. Egypt, which shares Gaza’s southern border, did not open its territory to a general civilian exodus. Other Arab governments also failed to establish a refuge on a scale that could have offered Gaza’s population a meaningful escape from the battlefield.

Cont.,

Cont.,

Their concerns about permanent displacement and Palestinian national rights were real, but so were the consequences for civilians left with nowhere safe to go. Children, the elderly and the injured had little opportunity to escape the devastation. This was a major humanitarian and political failure that deserves scrutiny alongside Israel’s conduct and Hamas’s responsibility.

It would be inaccurate to label that failure a war crime automatically; the precise legal obligations depend on the circumstances. Nevertheless, an examination of responsibility for civilian suffering that largely ignores neighbouring governments’ decisions is incomplete.

The article also uses emotionally charged language to move from allegations of excessive civilian casualties to conclusions of systematic murder. Its anonymous sources warrant investigation, but their claims are not self-proving. Likewise, the Israeli government’s hostility towards the filmmakers does not establish that their allegations are either true or false.

Concern for Palestinian civilians does not require us to forget the Israeli victims of 7 October. Defending Israel’s right to exist and protect its citizens does not require us to dismiss evidence of unlawful conduct.

Justice demands a consistent standard: Hamas must answer for its atrocities and hostage-taking; Israel must answer for any unlawful military actions; and neighbouring Arab governments should be held to account politically and morally for their response to the humanitarian crisis.

The suffering of Gaza’s civilians deserves compassion. But compassion should not become a selective instrument that places Israel permanently in the dock while treating the actions and omissions of everyone else as incidental to the story…