The brutal war on Gaza and Israel's barbarisation of warfare

As the International Court of Justice (ICJ) began hearings on a case brought forward by South Africa, accusing Israel of genocide in the Gaza war and seeking an emergency suspension of the onslaught on hapless Palestinian civilians, it provided a moment to reflect not only on the legal discourse but also on the historical progression of warfare ethics.

Since ancient Greece, philosophers like Plato have pondered the moral aspects of war. He posited that only those who willingly participate in the escalation of conflict merit designation as adversaries.

This concept is enshrined in contemporary warfare laws, establishing a clear distinction: non-combatants are protected if they abstain from conflict.

Conversely, the advancements of humanity in numerous domains stand in stark contrast to the brutality witnessed in World War II. This period's atrocities galvanised a universal accord that humanity must aspire to greater ethical standards in warfare. This sparked a more fervent discourse on harmonising the conduct of war with civilised norms.

Long road to civilised warfare

Historically, societies have been ranked based on their alignment with the esteemed model of civilisation.

Culturally and politically refined states were considered civilised, while less advanced societies were pejoratively deemed barbaric or savage.

The criteria for civilisation have traditionally included the tactics used in warfare and general wartime behaviour.

As Michael Howard contended: "We can learn a great deal about a people's culture and the manner in which it develops by observing how they fight."

This is why many international laws and regulations pertaining to warfare were enacted post-World War II.

In this context, Hannah Arendt maintained that "international law ... embodies the civilised ideal as it continues to underpin international dealings, even amidst conflict."

This remains a testament to the enduring aspiration for humanity to act within the bounds of civility, even when faced with dire circumstances of war.

Barbarisation of warfare

Regrettably, Israel's brutal onslaught on Gaza represents an unprecedented low in wartime conduct.

Israel has not only violated international law but has also severely undermined the very notion of civilised behaviour in the context of armed conflict.

As Professor Alex J Bellamy argues: "Without ethical and legal constraints on both the decision to wage it and its conduct, war is nothing more than the application of brute force, logically indistinguishable from mass murder."

From ethnic cleansing and dropping more than 65,000 tons of explosives on civilians to establishing torture camps and depriving people of Gaza of food, shelter, water, and basic healthcare while bombing hospitals, schools, refugee shelters, residential areas, mosques and churches, the Israeli political and military leaders have probably reached the nadir of humane and civilised behaviour.

Netanyahu and his cabinet resorted to the "war on terror" rhetoric to justify a turn to any means necessary, including the resort to barbarity in warfare.

They wanted to surf on the United States' so-called' global war on terror' after 9/11. This approach failed for many reasons, including the general fatigue over this narrative and the debunking of its fallacies.

While anti-Muslim and counter-terrorist discourses went hand in hand for a long time, the dehumanisation of Muslims – in this case, the Palestinians – is no longer enjoying wide currency.

Hence, irrespective of the outcome of South Africa's genocide case against Israel, it is the first time in history that the Zionist state's exactions in war have been exposed bare for all to see.

Forgotten lessons of history

Ironically, by running amok and drawing a military strategy grounded on anger and blind rage, Netanyahu and his far-right sycophants have forgotten many lessons of history.

They have overlooked that the principle of restrained warfare found universal acceptance across most cultures, civilisations, and religions.

But why is it so? Besides the obvious ethical, moral, and legal motivations, there is also an essential pragmatic component: military victories are futile unless translated into lasting political achievements.

From Plato, who recognised that a successful statesman must keep in mind that war should be a means to a better peace rather than an end in itself, to Shakespeare, who inserted a line in one of his plays that "it is excellent to have a giant's strength; but it is tyrannous to use it like a giant," thinkers throughout history understood that the resort to overwhelming force might be successful in the short-run but would subsequently create greater military, political or social problems.

Those who dismissed these principles ended up paying a heavy price.

During the Vietnam War, General Westmoreland used body counts of Vietnamese fighters as a key metric for victory in this war.

As a result, a large number of civilians were also targeted, but this accelerated the popular resentment against the American troops, who were ultimately defeated and had to withdraw from Vietnam.

The blind fury adopted by Netanyahu has been counterproductive at all levels.

Morally, Israel has destroyed the tenets of its victimhood narrative.

Militarily, the Israeli forces are stuck in an insurgency quagmire and contemplate their defeat.

Internationally, Israel has lost many of its traditional global support bases and has been duly exposed by the ICJ hearings.

And domestically, Netanyahu is faring badly in opinion polls, and the US is already gauging his potential successors.

Israel's turn to brutality in warfare may have appeased far-right factions, yet it has eroded vital international and domestic backing and created further complexities conflict-wise.

Netanyahu is about to be schooled in statecraft, the hard way.