The death of specialist knowledge – comment magazine

The New Yorker Has a fascinating essay on the relevance of the Israel War against the Hamas for US military planners who have the unfortunate task of preparing for a possible hot war with China. With the eyes of a former general lawyer of Richter – a US military figure who knows the realities of the war and the laws that regulate them, which affect a unique level of specialist knowledge – is very different from Israel's counter -offensive in the Gaza than the picture painted by NGOs and the media.

“IDF secret service officers showed at the Rafah border [former U.S. JAG Geoffrey] The corn surveillance videos, of which he says that the Hamas activity was shown in the area before the start of the IDF offensive, “writes Colin Jones.” The suggestion was that the destruction he saw was not the product of an indiscriminately attack and that the war laws had been confirmed. The use of civil buildings by Hamas converted these locations into “military destinations. The civilian population killed were not goals, but “random deaths”.

Mais and Jones continue to discuss the fact that the physical damage does not say whether war crimes were committed. This is both important and a matter of course. To joke: If a house in Gaza were reduced in rubble, nobody would assume that the law had been broken; Everyone would say “Tell me what happened there” before he came to a conclusion. If Hamas had operated on this house, it would explain the destruction.

Now what if the Hamas from 10 houses in this area of ​​Gaza City were operated on? Does anyone of these 10 houses simply become inviolable because there is a lot of house with Hamas fighter?

Legal is not a war crime just because this legal steps take place repeatedly. Deep inside Israel's critics just have to know that. Therefore, allegations of war are not only wrong; They are delivered in evil belief.

This is the first lesson of the New Yorker History: That it is actually Israel's critics who do not care about international law. They do not try to clearly use the international humanitarian right to the wars they observe. Israel has repeatedly found ways to legally defeat his enemies, and this frustrates them. They want Israel to restrict its commitment to what international law requires. The reason for this is that Israel loses war. That doesn't do it illegal For Israel to win the war.

Another example that noticed: The report that Corn Co-Aauthored looked at: “We believe that the IDF has fulfilled its legal obligations to grant humanitarian access and support for Gazan civilians.” That is not surprising. The humanitarian law generally does not require that Israel makes Hamas available could makes it available to its citizens, but does not decide for it. The law also frees the provision of help when there are “serious reasons for the fear” that the help is derived from its goal or that the enemy army will achieve a strategic advantage by its own after -school care or reluctance of the objects introduced from the outside. Obviously, these often apply in the case of Israel and Hamas. The fact that Israel has approved the equivalent of 3,000 calories per day per Gazan for most of the war means that Israel regularly went beyond what the law requires. This fact disturbs the critics of Israel if it should give them heart.

The second lesson from the article concerns the concept of “specialist knowledge”. Corn is an actual, undeniable expert on this matter. But how often does the public see him quoted in reporting about the war? Also the New Yorker The article falls into this trap: “Zodern experts have accused Israel of defending the war laws, including Francesca Albanese, the UN special reporting on the occupied Palestinian areas that argued that Israel international humanitarian laws.”

As I explained in detail in January, Albanese is primarily a loud and unapologist advocate of Hamas. The US government sees it as an anti-Semite-Wein she is an anti-Semite. But maybe more in a nutshell, Albanese clearly explained that Israel does not have the right to self -defense Against threats from Gaza. There is no planet on which this person can be granted the rank of an “expert” for international law. In fact, it is a good example of the problem mentioned above: Because Israel does not commit genocide, Albanese has to invent crimes that sound like genocide. This includes “residence” and “ecozide”.

That Albanese does not believe that Israel has the legal right to self -defense After October 7th This debate concludes: it is possible to be an expert in international law and also a rabies anti -Semite, but the entirety of the Alban is entitled to specialist knowledge that she is a rabid anti -Semitine.

And yet that New Yorker Quoted them, because that is the so-called “experts” in the world of the United Nations and the NGO satellites that float around them like space waste.

Reporters know that experts exist. But you like to hear what experts have to say, so instead call activists and anti -Semites. Expertise is one of the remarkable victims of this war.