Responding to Jonathan Turner from UKLFI on Gaza

I am listening to "Jonathan Turner calls out misinformation on BBC Ulster Radio" from UKLFI and I'd like to carefully record my responses to Turner's arguments. I am 5 minutes 22 seconds into the 12-minute segment and Turner is just about to make his first contribution. Before he gets started, let me underscore that Jonathan Turner is a human being as well as a lawyer. Indeed, it can and must be argued that lawyers are not made less human through their study and practice of the law, but more human. 

Alright. Here we go. Turner's first line of argument is that most of what viewers have heard up until this point is completely untrue. In reality, according to Turner:

1. The ceasefire wasn't shattered by Israeli military action, it was time-limited, and it came to an end.
2. The Hamas figures are manipulated and fabricated and shouldn't be relied upon at all. Many of those killed have been terrorists, and the ratio of civilian casualties to terrorist casualties has been much lower than in military conflicts in urban areas worldwide, reflecting the extraordinary care the IDF takes to prevent civilian casualties. Nevertheless, civilian casualties are inevitable.
3. Israel has an obligation to the security of its citizens to defeat Hamas in order to prevent Hamas from repeating future October 7s.
4. There has not been mass starvation in Gaza and previous allegations to this effect have all proven false thus far.

Turner's second line of argument is that Israel should not allow independent international media into Gaza so that they can resolve all of the contested factual issues in this conflict because:

1. Independent international media have shown an appalling record of anti-Israel bias from the outside-in to date.
2. Any media allowed into Gaza would be under the control of Hamas and this would likely make the reporting worse, not better.
3. Israel has a free press, and it is already reporting on what is happening in Gaza.

Which takes us to the end of the segment.

In my view, Turner will eventually lose the argument about whether Israel broke the latest ceasefire, but I could well be wrong. It's a point that deserves a fair and thorough hearing. Did Israel break the ceasefire, did Hamas, or did neither side? Does it matter even if Israel did break the ceasefire, if the terms of the ceasefire contradicted the principle of the immediate and unconditional release of all Israeli hostages?

As to the number of civilian casualties reported by Hamas, I don't hear anyone doubting that at least twenty times more Gazan civilians than Israeli civilians, including women and children, have perished since October 7. This is not to assert a strict moral equivalence, but it is not to ignore a basic mathematical reality, either. 

Yes, the civilians of Israel are entitled to a defense from imminent and potential threats. But surely, the civilians of Gaza are also entitled to a defense from imminent and potential threats. I don't think Hamas is entitled to provide defensive services for Gazan civilians. Hamas is a genocidal antisemitic terrorist organization that uses Gazan civilians as martyrs and human shields in keeping with a delusional eschatology. Unless and until the UN Security Council intervenes with peacekeepers under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the only group I see actually trying to defend Gazan civilians from Hamas brutalization and brainwashing is the IDF. Maybe there is also a quiet, subversive battle being waged against Hamas within UNRWA and other institutions of Gazan society. I don't know. Gazan civilians are hostages of Hamas, as I see it, and they've been brainwashed internally for years, as well as externally by an irresponsible international media environment. Gaza became an open-air, tunnel-riddled prison after Israeli withdrawal in 2005 because of Hamas, not because of Israel. 

Israeli and Gazan civilians are entitled to defense from imminent harm, and the IDF is the only lawful body that has stepped up to provide this defense. (The UN Security Council surely hasn't, and perhaps Farhan Haq should direct rather more of his frustration there). The primary method employed by Israel up to this point has been the evacuation of Gazan civilians to safe zones. Egypt and the African Union, including South Africa, have blocked Gazan civilians from seeking refuge in Sinai displacement camps, or elsewhere on the continent, despite South African claims that Israel is committing a genocide. South Africa filed its genocide claims on 29 December 2023. Surely the humanitarian situation in Gaza is as dire now as it has ever been. Surely South Africa must be convinced that Netanyahu is a genocidal madman, the IDF is caught up in the fog of war, and the final extermination of the Gazans is at hand. Under these circumstances, why is the African Union not demanding a right of Gazan exodus to Egypt? Is South Africa more concerned with saving Gazan lives, or crucifying Netanyahu in court? What kind of moral calculus is that? Who are the real war criminals here, Netanyahu and Trump or El-Sisi and Ramaphosa? 

Regarding Turner's fourth point, I agree that the potential for mass starvation in Gaza is a classic case of the boy who cried wolf. Has the real wolf finally arrived? I don't think anyone knows. The best thing I can see to do, assuming that Netanyahu - mad or sane - follows through with Gideon's Chariots, and Trump stays silent, and Hamas remains incalcitrant right up until the bitterest end, refusing to surrender, is to get all of the Gazan civilians into safe zones where humanitarian aid is certain, sufficient, and provided without dependence on either Israel or Hamas. I would also like to see every family in Gaza offered asylum support services alongside a right of return to Gaza. My understanding is that up to 50 percent of Gazans would prefer to relocate. I think the world owes them an opportunity to start over elsewhere. 

Of course, at the end of the day, even the next pope won't have control over Hamas, or Netanyahu, or El-Sisi, or the UN Security Council, and I don't think I am about to be elected the next pope. All I can do is pray that one of these four - or perhaps all four in unison - will find the right way to budge.

As far as freedom of press access to Gaza is concerned, I note High Court says Israel can keep barring foreign reporters from Gaza | The Times of Israel and Jerusalem-based foreign press group calls for 'unrestricted' access to Gaza for reporters | The Times of Israel. I haven't considered the issue and don't presently have an opinion on it.