Hostage Rescue and Cognitive Dissonance

Finally something to celebrate last week. But what are the moral and legal implications of the rescue of 4 Israeli hostages? 

They were rescued from two residential buildings, inside civilian apartments where civilians actually lived. There are unconfirmed reports that at least one of the hostages was held in the family apartment of a journalist. In legal terms this would be called complicity to commit a crime. Now the question is whether it was willing or unwilling complicity. But that question, I would argue is meaningless. 

How can one determine willingness when all civilian non-combatants live in what amounts to a mafia-state? One in which there is no rule of law, and corruption and coercion is the coin of the realm? Unlike places where there is the rule of law and accountability, we can't. 

Warfare is typically fought over territory. In a case of terrorist action as a tactic of warfare, in which hostages are taken, the legal and moral framework shifts. When civilian hostages are taken by a warring party (as a opposed to prisoners of war), they transgress a norm which makes them ultimately culpable for any eventuality that might arise from any efforts to rescue those hostages. It's the only reasonable approach to a situation created by the taking of civilian hostages where civilians are being used as a military strategy by the hostage-takers.

In a case like the harrowing, meticulously planned, extremely risky rescue operation carried out by the IDF, which saved the lives of four hostages but apparently killed scores of civilians in the process (it's still very questionable how many), do the rescuers have any responsibility for the number of civilians killed? The moral and legal answer must be no. The only responsibility the rescuers have is to maximize the likelihood of rescue, and minimize the risk to the hostages and rescuers. The responsibility for civilian casualties lies completely with the hostage-takers, especially when they purposely hold them in a crowded civilian environment, as these were. Astonishingly, in an interview with the BBC, Jonathan Conricus, former IDF spokesman, was asked if the IDF should have warned the Palestinians about the IDF operation to avoid so many Palestinian casualties? He answered (I paraphrase), you mean you expect the IDF to warn about a surprise rescue operation? He correctly pointed out that there was a fire fight and it's altogether possible that many of the Palestinian casualties came directly from Hamas gunfire. It's simply unknowable at this juncture. But it didn't stop many journalists from piling on Israel. In a social media post, not that I care too much about social media, Kenneth Roth, former Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, accused Israel of the war crime of 'perfidy' (deceit) for dressing as Palestinian civilians and speaking in Arabic during the rescue operation. Somehow, many (mainstream journalists, the ICC and Human Rights Watch among them) don't seem to comprehend the moral and legal assymetry at work. As if to belie the absurdity of blaming Israel for the temerity of rescuing their hostages, Sinwar stepped up to take responsibility for Palestinian civilian deaths reportedly saying, it's the price we must pay for victory. The cognitive dissonance in the West is remarkable, owing to just how repulsive, and outside-the-bounds of basic human morality, decency and civility the Hamas strategy is.