There is a peculiar species of modern moralist who treats war not as a tragedy to be understood, but as a stage upon which to perform indignation. Kenneth Roth’s recent lament in The Guardian is a near-perfect specimen of this genus: a piece so saturated in prosecutorial certainty, and so curiously devoid of intellectual balance, that it collapses under the weight of its own pretensions.

We are told, in solemn tones, that international humanitarian law is approaching its breaking point. The villains are presented in familiar hierarchy: Israel foremost, Russia predictably, Sudan dutifully, and a scattering of other offenders to preserve the illusion of universal concern. But it does not take a particularly trained eye to notice where Roth’s prosecutorial enthusiasm truly resides. Israel is not merely criticised; it is indicted, convicted, and morally sentenced in a single breath.

One need not be an apologist for any government to recognise what is taking place here. This is not legal analysis. It is moral theatre.

The first and most glaring defect in Roth’s argument is his treatment of Hamas – not as the central actor responsible for initiating the present conflict, nor as an organisation whose operational doctrine explicitly depends upon embedding itself within civilian infrastructure – but as a kind of atmospheric condition. It exists, certainly, but only as background. The foreground is reserved exclusively for Israel’s response.

This omission is not trivial. It is the entire case.

International humanitarian law was never written for wars between armies that courteously meet in open fields. It exists precisely because combatants often exploit civilians to shield themselves from........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)