JINSA Summary

Before you read this, remember: Most Americans support Israel, it is thriving, and 5/10 you're anxiety is not equal to reality. 

Source: https://jinsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Gaza-Assessment.v8-1.pdf 

IDF military operations complied with LOAC and consistently implemented precautions to mitigate civilian risk, some exceeding those implemented in recent U.S. combat operations that we participated in, despite confronting an adversary that often sought to exacerbate that risk deliberately.

These impressive precautions often came at an operational and tactical cost to the IDF, allowing belligerents to escape, diminishing the tactical advantage of surprise, and reducing the number of other targets that could be monitored or struck. The IDF accepted these costs in the interest of civilian risk mitigation.

Hamas violated the most fundamental LOAC principle—that of distinction or distinguishing between military and civilian targets—by deliberately attacking Israeli civilian population areas and by launching indiscriminate attacks. While most of these attacks failed, it was the effort, not the result, that indicates Hamas’ pervasive LOAC violations. Furthermore, Hamas deliberately located its military assets—including rocket launchers, mortar positions, command and control posts, and military tunnels—in close proximity to civilians, indicating an unlawful intent to utilize human shields and render it near impossible for the IDF to attack lawful targets without serious risk of incidental civilian casualties or collateral damage to civilian property. These actions are in keeping with Hamas’ stated ideology. Hamas then spread disinformation, claiming that the inevitable civilian casualties were an indication of Israeli war crimes

We found a significant gap between this reality of IDF LOAC compliance, and of Hamas’ violation of it, and the public’s perception. Israel’s messaging efforts were unable to close this gap

Perhaps the most telling feature of the Gaza conflict was the strategy mismatch between Israel’s purely military and operational objectives to degrade Hamas’ military capabilities— assisted by impressive advances in identifying and precisely striking targets—and Hamas’ information-based strategic objectives of delegitimizing the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in global opinion and degrading the IDF’s operational advantage. The ability of an unscrupulous adversary to constrain military operations or even achieve strategic advantage against a much more capable opponent through the use of human shields and disinformation about both facts and law is a particularly concerning harbinger of what the United States might soon face.

The mismatch between Hamas’ strategic informational and Israel’s military operational objectives enabled both sides to claim victory in the May 2021 conflict, failing to resolve any foundational issues in the conflict and suggesting a high probability of future hostilities. Israel restored a semblance of quiet on the Gaza front, primarily the cessation of projectile firing, and degraded Hamas’ military capabilities, but without fundamentally changing the operational conditions on the ground—Hamas’ control of Gaza and its ability to rearm. Hamas claimed it had successfully defended Jerusalem and stood up for Palestinians, despite its sizable battlefield losses. This creates a vicious cycle in which Israel’s operational focus makes it both more likely to continue conducting military operations in Gaza and losing the battle for legitimacy

International media and publics were even more vocal accusing Israel of war crimes than previously, and they again proved susceptible to disinformation coming out of Gaza. The IDF did little to help itself in this uphill battle, even as Hamas indiscriminately attacked Israel and intentionally increased risks to Gazan civilians…As after past rounds of conflict, this strategy mismatch seems to ensure renewed hostilities in the future

Unfortunately, the claim at the center of Hamas’ disinformation strategy—that international law prohibits all civilian casualties—is a common misperception among the media and general public uninformed about the specifics of LOAC obligations. LOAC does tolerate harm to civilians and destruction of civilian property during armed conflict, subject to certain principles, as defined above. Civilian casualties resulting from a strike on a lawful target, tragic as they are, are not automatic indicators of a LOAC violation. Indeed, an attack may be unlawful because it was intended to harm civilians or civilian property but failed to do so; while a corresponding attack may be lawful because it was intended to harm enemy personnel or a military objective but in fact caused incidental injury to civilians or collateral damage to civilian property.

The lack of an information “campaign between the wars” made it easier for the media and public to accept uncritically Hamas’ account of what was happening once hostilities actually erupted, putting Israel at an immediate legitimacy disadvantage from the beginning of the conflict. Yet, even once the conflict began, Israel neither disputed Hamas’ disinformation nor called attention to Hamas’ LOAC abuses.

Despite these shortcomings in messaging and communications, we encountered skepticism among Israeli military and civilian leaders that any strategic communications campaign, regardless of how well executed, could surmount the pre-existing wall of antiIsraeli bias and hostility. We are concerned a similar feeling of futility is an increasing risk among U.S. forces. But our review also indicates that even if messaging efforts have marginal impact, ceding the information domain to the enemy is an unacceptable response.

A broad campaign is required to rectify the lack of clarity regarding LOAC requirements, particularly in urban warfare. This cannot be done by cursory statements by public affairs military personnel once hostilities break out. A comprehensive and proactive effort is required to enhance overall appreciation of the U.S. commitment to LOAC and understanding of the true relationship between the law and complex military operations.