Words matter. George Eliot may have commented that correct English is the slang of prigs.But there is a reason—good reason—that we employ certain words and not others, and a reason that we demand accuracy from our students, our lawyers, and our thinkers. Lazy use of big words adds to smug self-righteousness and it is not helpful when talking about serious ideas.

　　Unlike so many armchair diplomats, I do not have an easy solution—or any solution, really—to the Israel-Palestine conundrum. I dont know enough, nor do I have the hubris to pontificate on a two-state solution, the legality versus expediency of occupation of territories after the 1967 war, or the prudence of the Oslo Accords.

　　But it is clear that sloppy language is being used for emotional and political purposes. War is messy and ugly. Israel and the IDF are being very clear about taking the language and obligations of international law seriously; Hamas is hiding behind language to distract from its violations of international law. Alas, many in the West are duped by this language and engaging in the same kind of sloppiness.

　　The West and UN

　　In the months since the Hamas terrorist attacks of October 7, 2023, four words have been thrown about with casual imprecision: militant, refugee, apartheid, and genocide.

　　The BBC infamously kept referring to Hamas as a militant group after the October terrorist attacks. A veteran BBC correspondent justified this, explaining that calling someone a terrorist means youre taking sides—well, yes, an honest man can take sides against those who intentionally murder civilians and engage in mass sexual violence before taking hostages. Had Hamas limited its October 7 assault to military bases, it would not have been engaged in an act of terrorism. If the Israeli army starts taking hostages, raping women, girls, and men in Gaza, or killing as many people as possible for political purposes, it will be a terrorist organization. Deliberate targeting of civilians for political purposes is terrorism. Militants attack soldiers and organize protests; they dont engage in genital mutilation and mass murder. In a milquetoast turn, the BBC now valiantly has replaced militant by referring to [groups] proscribed as a terror organisation by the UK Government and others.

　　The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) shows an odd disconnect. It defines Palestinian refugees as persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict. It also claims there are currently 6 million Palestinian refugees. But the conflict took place almost 80 years ago. Every other refugee crisis of World War II has been resolved. The Palestinian refugee crisis is the only one to linger—primarily because UNRWA, as a rent-seeking organization, along with Israel’s autocratic neighbors, has an interest in perpetuating it. The plight of those living and born into refugee camps is awful. But these people are no longer refugees, and the problem could have been solved long ago. As an organization that has an interest in perpetuating, rather than solving, the situation, the UN is an obstacle to a long-term solution. It is a handmaiden to permanent resentment and second-class citizenship.

　　Israel is frequently accused of maintaining an apartheid state, comparable to South Africas sophisticated system of racial segregation in the twentieth century. In that ugly system, each individual was carefully categorized by race, and the races were kept apart. But in Israel, one-fifth of the population is Arab and enjoys the same political and civil rights as Jews (consider the status of Jews in Arab states). About 8 percent of the Knesset comprises Arab legislators (again, consider Arab legislatures). All of this makes Arabs living in Israel’s so-called apartheid system the freest Arabs in the Middle East and North Africa. Of the approximately 475 million Arabs in the region, only about two million have full civil and political rights—and all of them are Israeli citizens. Israel is the only country in the region where an ordinary Arab citizen can be elected, let alone vote in a free election.

　　At the end of 2023, South Africa brought a case against Israel to the International Court of Justice, claiming that the Israeli operation to destroy Hamas and free the October 7 hostages was an act of genocide. South Africa based its case on allegedly indiscriminate mass killings by Israel. The 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide states that genocide amounts to killings committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such. The Nazis were rightly accused of Jewish genocide, but rightly not accused of genocide of Russian civilians as they invaded Russia. Regardless of the merits of the atom bomb, the US was rightly not accused of genocide; civilian deaths notwithstanding, the goal was capitulation, not the destruction of the Japanese people. If Israel were indeed interested in genocide, it would not hamstring its military operation against Hamas through compliance with international law. Civilian deaths are a tragedy—and inevitable in war. But Israel’s actions do not exhibit the intention to destroy the Palestinian people. By contrast, Hamas can rightly be described as genocidal, in its stated goal of killing Jews (and not just Israelis).

　　Lets stop throwing around empty words that obscure the truth and seek to justify barbarity.

　　The Letter and Spirit of International Law

　　Israel generally, along with the IDF specifically, finds itself in a difficult position.

　　On the one hand, it faces the military exigency of eliminating the existential threat represented by Hamas—one which included a whopping 24 combat battalions (or 30,000 fighters) at the onset of IDF operations (by comparison, this is the equivalent of two US army divisions).

　　On the other hand, Israel, as a liberal democracy, is taking great pains to ensure that it complies with international law in the conduct of its military operations. In legal terms, this means the IDF is carefully following the three guidelines of international law when it comes to civilian targets:necessity, distinction, and proportionality (as laid out in Protocol I, Chapter II to the Geneva Conventions of 1929, as amended in 1949).

　　Necessity, under the international law of armed conflict, requires that every injury done to the enemy, even though permitted by the rules, [be] excusable only so far as it is absolutely necessary; everything beyond that is criminal. The principle of distinction calls for strict differentiation between military and civilian targets; however (as in the case of collateral damage or intentional use of human shields), this does not mean that civilians cannot be legally harmed or killed under the law, only that civilians and civilian property should not be the object or the purpose of the attack. Finally, the principle of proportionality dictates that when considering a target the damage to civilians and their property cannot be excessive in relation to the military advantage gained. Proportionality is not a requirement if the target is purely military.

　　In practical terms, this has meant a number of restrictions for the IDF. The IDF will strike only targets with legitimate military objectives. It issues warnings to civilians (by leaflet or telephone), and uses roof knocking (warning shots of dud missiles to clear out civilians before legitimate military targets are destroyed). The IDFs international law department must authorize targets. In a 2005 ruling, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that:

　　The harm to innocent civilians caused by collateral damage during combat operations must be proportional. … Civilians might be harmed due to their presence inside of a military target, such as civilians working in an army base; civilians might be harmed when they live or work in, or pass by, military targets; at times, due to a mistake, civilians are harmed even if they are far from military targets; at times civilians are forced to serve as human shields from attack upon a military target, and they are harmed as a result. In all those situations, and in other similar ones, the rule is that the harm to the innocent civilians must fulfil, inter alia, the requirements of the principle of proportionality.

　　The proportionality test determines that an attack upon innocent civilians is not permitted if the collateral damage caused to them is not proportionate to the military advantage (in protecting combatants and civilians). In other words, an attack is proportionate if the benefit stemming from the attainment of the proper military objective is proportionate to the damage caused to innocent civilians harmed by it.

　　Even though the IDF has strict guidelines for mission compliance with international law, mistakes and willful disregard happen. The IDF investigates those, and punishes transgressors.

　　The Abuse of Language

　　By contrast, there is no Hamas International Law Department. The October 7 attacks were an exercise in thorough planning and logistical efficiency—one that included deliberate targeting and mutilation of civilians, as well as hostage-taking. Since the start of the IDF operation, Hamas has intentionally used human shields, and callously used civilian casualties to grind down international support for Israel. Hamas is exhibiting willful disregard for international norms.

　　Hamas has been hiding behind language. After the horrors of October 7, it has been using human shields to inflate deaths (which are further inflated by the Hamas-controlled Ministry of Health). These inflated deaths, which propagandists and ill-informed critics of Israel are sloppily painting as genocide, are part of Hamass cynical campaign to erode Western support for Israels response to terrorism. Alas, many in the Western press and on US campuses are falling for sloppy but emotionally satisfying language.

　　The plight of Palestinian civilians is terrible. My heart aches for Palestinians and Israelis alike.

　　But no state can tolerate—on its border—a terrorist organization that seeks that state’s annihilation. Israel faces the terrible existential necessity of defeating Hamas. With the help of the world, Gazans will have to find a longer-term solution, of peaceful coexistence with Israel, as a people freed from the oppressive yoke of a terrorist organization, and relieved of the Israeli blockade (which that terrorist organization’s infernal aims make horribly necessary).

　　In the meantime, lets stop throwing around empty words that obscure the truth and seek to justify barbarity.