It would help if journalists on the scene describe how Hamas fights—or simply recall how it fought in the past. In previous wars with Israel, Hamas has fired its rockets from schoolyards and hospital parking lots, from residential neighborhoods with children playing a hundred yards away. Even in crowded Gaza, it is possible to fight from places (the long beaches, for example) that don’t implicate the civilian population. When Hamas doesn’t do that, who is responsible for the civilian deaths that follow when Israel responds?
We don’t mean that as a rhetorical question with an easy answer. The high-tech army also has responsibilities, and these are not easy to meet. It has to do everything it can to prevent civilian injury and death. The crucial question, the hard and agonizing question for any army, goes like this: What risks must its soldiers take to reduce the risks they impose on civilians who are being used, willingly or unwillingly, by the enemy? In the American army, and we assume in the IDF, this is a much-debated question. When General Stanley McCrystal announced new rules of engagement for American soldiers in Afghanistan, designed to reduce civilian casualties, The New York Times reported that some soldiers complained that the new rules made fighting too dangerous. They were probably right. But McCrystal was also right. We hope that Israel has had a McCrystal moment, that the IDF is committed not just to avoiding killing civilians, which doesn’t seem the commitment of the current bombing, but also to acting positively to protect civilians.
But we must be honest: We do want the IDF to win—not a war of revenge but a war for justice. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a failed leader trying to regain his footing, reverted to his usual—and dangerous—rhetoric when he said publicly that “we will take mighty vengeance for this black day.” Israel must seek justice and avoid the temptations of vengeance.