Opposing Iron Dome Funding is Not a Peaceful Proposition

By Cade Spivey

On September 23, a group of progressive Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives stood firm against House Resolution 5323, a funding bill to support Israel's Iron Dome weapon system. The vote was all but preordained to pass with overwhelming support, and it did just that – passing by a margin of 420–9, with two abstentions. The holdouts: Republican Thomas Massie, citing dubious fiscal concerns; several Democrats citing various procedural issues; and the collective anchor of the left-wing of the Democratic party known as "the squad."

From the outset of their respective elections, these Democrats have objected to U.S. funding for Israel through a campaign known as "BDS" (or boycott, divestment, and sanctions). For the uninitiated, the aim of BDS is both amorphous and straightforward: reduce Israel's war-fighting capability and draw on her economic relationship with the U.S. to force her to the bargaining table on the issue of establishing or recognizing a Palestinian state. Unfortunately, where that bargaining table is, the relative positions of the parties, and even the identities of the parties remain perennially unanswered questions. With no clear or unified end-state, BDS has become more of a war cry than an articulable political strategy.

Instead, BDS has become a cliché partisan tactic that resurfaces about once every congressional election cycle. It gains just enough steam for the American public to remember what it stands for, only to fade away as the university quad trend-activists break for the summer, replacing their Palestine flag-backed profile photos with shots from their beach vacation. This past summer, protest season extended into mid-May and June as Israel defended itself from waves of Hamas and Islamic Jihad rocket attacks from Gaza. Those voices were amplified as Israel counter-attacked rocket sites often located within the crowded city center.

The BDS movement certainly has its adherents in the squad, though. Regardless of affiliation, one must admit that they generally stick to their principles more than the typical American political partisan. But a commitment to a set of faulty tenets is hardly a reason for celebrating the cause itself.

In the September 23 vote, America witnessed the BDS movement run headlong, with the squad leading the charge, into the steel-reinforced brick wall that is 70+ years of American-Israeli defensive partnership. Israel's Iron Dome is a purely defensive weapon system responsible for saving the lives of potentially thousands of Israelis and Palestinians alike. The system is the sole reason the death toll of the May crises did not exceed quadruple digits and likely prevented an otherwise necessary escalation of force by the IDF.

Cutting funding to Iron Dome would not have made a single Palestinian safer. It would not have made the IDF weaker as a fighting force. On the contrary, it would have only created an imperative for Israel to focus its defensive energy on attacking more rocket sites, whether from the air or via a ground-based assault. It would have endangered the lives of Israelis seeking to live in peace and those Palestinians who could not escape proximity to conflict.

No matter where one's heart lies, defunding Iron Dome is not a pro-Palestinian position; it is solely an anti-Israel position. The throw-away contrarian votes of the squad were nothing more than a political statement. It is the kind of statement they have made before and will likely make again when they have the microphone. But when symbolic gestures threaten the safety and security of Israelis with no benefit to Palestinians, it leaves one to question if the squad merely misunderstand their own rhetoric or whether they are saying the quiet part out loud.

---

Cade Spivey is a publishing Adjunct at The MirYam Institute. He is a graduate of the United States Naval Academy and served three tours in the Navy as a Gunnery/Antiterrorism Officer, Damage Control Assistant, and Counter-Piracy Evaluator. He is also a graduate of the Wake Forest University School of Law and a practicing attorney in Jacksonville, Florida, focusing on military and national security law. Read full bio here.

One Man’s Terrorist is No Man’s Freedom Fighter

By Cade Spivey

There is a cliché that “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” The phrase seeks to engender a notion that there is moral relativism within the context of political struggle and the use of force. As a former naval officer who adheres to western concepts of respect for human rights and the dignity of individual life, this is anathema.

Over the last two weeks, I have watched in disgust as this continuously retread both-sides-style characterization played out across our national and international discourse concerning the Israel-Hamas/Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) conflict. Media on the left, right, and center, politicians, podcasters, and pundits have haphazardly used words like “war crimes” without any regard to their meaning or effect. Such imprecise language reveals either a misunderstanding of the rules governing the use of force or perhaps, more cynically, an intentional disregard of these rules to suit a particular narrative. At varying levels and contexts, I have seen both.

Much hay has been made regarding the disparity in death toll between Palestinians and Israelis. At the writing of this article, nearly 96 hours after the imposition of a ceasefire, the numbers stand at approximately 230 Palestinian lives lost and 12 Israelis – almost 20:1 ratio. This includes 65 Palestinian children and two Israeli children. Hamas fired more than 4000 rockets toward the civilian population of Israel. Nearly 650 landed in Gaza, killing Gazans, while Israel’s Iron Dome weapon system intercepted 85% of the remainder. Assuming a proportionate increase in death from rocket attack, Iron Dome can account for nearly 40–45 lives saved in the recent weeks. This is a conservative estimate given that Iron Dome prioritizes rockets that will impact densely occupied areas. I expect these numbers to change as the literal and figurative dust settles.

Under the law of armed conflict (LOAC), proportionality does not necessitate using the same level of force as one’s enemy, ensuring equality of death toll, or engaging in the same style of warfare. This would be a cold and meaningless calculus that would devalue human life and unnecessarily prolong armed conflict. It is unnecessary to use the minimum amount of force possible, just as it is unreasonable to flatten an entire city to kill a single terrorist. Large, sophisticated militaries should expect to trounce smaller, unsophisticated ones. They bear no responsibility to use less force than necessary to end the conflict quickly and preserve human life.

The IDF’s use of laser-and GPS-guided munitions, shape-charges, programable missiles, and precision artillery have all gone far in providing advanced targeting capabilities that reduce unnecessary destruction. The IDF gives warnings before strikes, and directs attacks at known rocket sites and Hamas/PIJ strongholds.

Contrast such practices with the over 4,000 rockets fired indiscriminately from Gaza. They are crudely constructed, unguided, and fired for maximum effect in the general direction of Israel’s most populated cities. They do not target military facilities or critical defense infrastructure. They are fired without warning giving some citizens between 15 and 45 seconds to reach  shelter. The rockets do not distinguish between soldier or civilian, adult or child, Palestinian or Jew.

The unfortunate occurrence of civilian death from IDF airstrikes does not imply that the attacks causing those deaths are illegal. One must evaluate the legality of the attack itself. This is not a task for a 24-hour news cycle or a passive social media user from thousands of miles away. As a security matter, when given the option between performing a targeted strike to neutralize a threat or doing nothing whereafter people will continue to be shelled by indiscriminate rocket fire, it is hardly a choice.

Collateral damage and civilian death are always tragic, regrettable, and should be avoided to the greatest extent practicable. Therefore, we limit armed conflict where feasible and implement rules to govern the use of force. But these rules are meant to be followed, not abused. Thus, it is a violation to hide weaponry and combatant forces among citizens in their places of worship, schools, residential buildings, and commercial centers. The rules do not say “Don’t fight terrorists near civilians;” but instead “Don’t use civilians as human shields.”

The need to remain objective is especially challenging when faced with the gut-wrenching personal narratives and visual media that this recent round of conflict yielded. The stories and the loss of life are tragic and should not be discounted. Simultaneously, emotion should not form the basis for determining what is and is not an appropriate use of force.

The death of innocent civilians is justifiably disgusting. I do not celebrate such loss of life or suggest that a 12-year-old child delivering a toaster oven was a necessary victim of collateral damage. However, I do suggest that those who share in my disgust direct it at the party that established an indistinguishable military presence amongst the civilians they claim to fight for, knowing that the response to indiscriminate rocket attacks would be military force. When faced with such death and destruction, the same party increased their attacks from populated areas and uses the images of the dead and tragic stories of loss as propaganda tools.

Israel is not above criticism. I have reservations about retaliatory strikes in general, and I think there is ample reason for an inquiry into some of the decisions made regarding specific targets. Israel’s explanation of IDF actions has been somewhat lackluster. Despite any operational successes in weakening Hamas/PIJ militarily, the handling  of the public relations aspect of this conflict has been a failure. We live in a world wherein perception determines reality, and Israel has failed to account for this principle.

I see a large swath of American distaste at Israel’s management of the conflict in Gaza as ignorance at best – perhaps mixed with displeasure in the rules that govern armed conflict or even warfare itself. There are legitimate policy debates surrounding these issues. But for now, the rules are what they are, and warfare is hardly an anachronism. At worst, I see these criticisms as an overused double-standard that conveniently suits an anti-Israel narrative while ignoring Israeli concerns for international security and the safety of its citizens.

Regardless, terms that have far-reaching international consequences should be used with discretion and a complete understanding of both their meaning and the facts rather than promoting a false moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas/PIJ. These actors are not the same – not even close.

---

Cade Spivey is a publishing Adjunct at The MirYam Institute. He is a graduate of the United States Naval Academy and served three tours in the Navy as a Gunnery/Antiterrorism Officer, Damage Control Assistant, and Counter-Piracy Evaluator. He is currently a student at the Wake Forest University School of Law.

Video: ISRAEL'S MARITIME STRATEGY

Admiral Gour-Lavie At The Fletcher School Of Law & Diplomacy

You Won't Get Peace Now By Weaponizing Falsehoods

By Cade Spivey

On a long drive from my native Indiana to Virginia, I listened to a podcast wherein the interview subject began with a fairly benign truism: "Words matter." The program, produced by Americans For Peace Now, began by stating that not every murder is a genocide, and that not all discrimination is apartheid. The interview then continued for another thirty minutes laying out a “legal” framework of apartheid in order to shoehorn Israel into that definition, vis-à-vis Palestinian Arabs living in the West Bank.  

I agree that words matter. The words we use to describe an issue directly influence the substance of a debate. I further contend that facts matter, and that merely using legal terms to describe a legal framework does not establish facts independently. Law was not meant to be argued in the abstract. The arguments made to establish Israel as an "apartheid state" were irresponsible and unwarranted and promoted key assertions which have become commonplace in the misinformed effort to establish Israel as an apartheid state. 

Apartheid Defined

The UN defines apartheid as "inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them." The term was derived from the system of racial segregation imposed in South Africa from the late 1940s until 1994. Separation of the races was strictly enforced in public accommodation, trade, education, marriage, and even sexual acts. The purpose was to cement the power structures which existed at the end of the British colonialization of the region. While the UN's legal framework does not establish South African-style apartheid as a benchmark for action, there have been no sanctions for acts by any government (including South Africa) since the passage of the Rome Statute by the International Criminal Court in 1997. 

Regardless, the cynical invocation of the term harkens back to that brutal scheme of governance in hope of eliciting a sympathetic response to the alleged victims - in this case, the Palestinian Arabs. When the term is used to describe Israel, it is as inappropriate an analogy as a comparison apples to hand grenades. 

Occupied Territory

Firstly, the speaker described the West Bank as "occupied territory" under international law. This is simply not true. The area traditionally referred to as the West Bank is not "occupied." The West Bank is “disputed" territory. While the distinction may seem purely semantic, words matter.

Occupied territories are captured in war from another sovereign; in this case, a Palestinian sovereign did not exist in 1967, prior to the Six Day War, when the alleged “occupation” began. Disputed territories, however, are lands subject to ongoing negotiations regarding conflicting claims of sovereignty. Referring to the West Bank as occupied may play well into the argument of Israeli apartheid, but doing so mischaracterizes the legal and political frameworks under which both sides of the debate are attempting to establish agreements. Furthermore, this mischaracterization does not produce a positive result - nor does it seek to do so. It seeks only to entrench and divide both sides through alienation while failing to meaningfully address the needs of either.

Racial Subjugation

The speaker told of an Israel where Arabs are second-class citizens; denied the right to vote, run for office, or attain citizenship. I would wager there are many Israeli-Arabs who would beg to differ. For example, Abdel Rahman Zuabi, Salim Joubran, or George Karra, former members of Israel's Supreme Court; the 17 Israeli-Arab members currently serving in the Knesset; or perhaps the Israeli-Arabs serving in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), would likely see things differently. 

Even in the West Bank, Palestinians are afforded voting rights and even their own civil management under the Palestinian Authority (PA). While the PA certainly coordinates with Israel in some areas - such as sharing security functions with the IDF - it  still has autonomy status. The Palestinian-Arabs who live under the control of the Authority are not denied a voice, it’s just that the authority to which they speak seems unwilling to listen. The people who live in the West Bank are subject to security controls and movement is, at times, limited. But the realities that lead to such policies are independent of their race. They are based on real-world safety and security concerns. The Palestinian-Arabs are not subjugated, and they are not second-class citizens. They are also not citizens of Israel.

To be clear, matters of Israeli-Palestinian sovereignty are not beyond debate. There are political, religious, and human rights issues that should be debated and considered very deliberately. 

Reducing one side or the other to terms that are the very embodiment of evil through ad hominem labels or inappropriately applied legal definitions is not helpful, and does not produce meaningful outcomes for people living these truths daily.

---

Cade Spivey is a publishing Adjunct at The MirYam Institute. He is a graduate of the United States Naval Academy and served three tours in the Navy as a Gunnery/Antiterrorism Officer, Damage Control Assistant, and Counter-Piracy Evaluator. He is currently a student at the Wake Forest University School of Law.

NATIONAL GUARD DEPLOYMENT IS A DELICATE MISSION

By Benjamin Anthony, Richard Kemp, & Cade Spivey

Following the brutal killing of George Floyd, demonstrations and peaceful protests have taken place throughout the United States in a legitimate expression of deep grievances and suffering felt by members of Black America and those who stand in solidarity with their cause.

Separate to those, gangs of violent, thuggish, rioting looters and agitators are now engaged in a rash of dangerous, criminal behavior spreading throughout America.

As a result, the security role of the National Guard, originally confined during the COVID-19 era to "support for warehouse and commodity management and distribution," "conducting logistics missions in support of the state response at warehouse locations," and "advising and assisting, logistics, transportation, traffic control…" is now very likely to become vital, central, and extremely complex, deployed as they will be to not only disperse those gangs, but also to protect the business owners and homeowners threatened by these violent mobs.

As veterans of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), the United States Navy (USN) and the British Army, respectively, we are well aware of the complexities regarding the implementation of the use of force for the sake of crowd control, across a range of missions; from dispersal, to anti-terror measures. 

We understand the complexities of a military deploying and operating among and alongside a host nation's citizenry against threats emanating from non-citizens. While conducting those operations, we found that the greatest asset to hand was a population of willing supporters – people that saw us not as occupiers or tyrants, but as colleagues, partners, and even family.

Those operations were not nearly as complex or as fraught an undertaking as the deployment of what is essentially a military, to restrain its own citizenry. The British Army conducted such operations in Northern Ireland beginning in the late 1960s and their actions are still being fought out in the courts half a century later.

Yet that very task could soon become the priority of the Guard.

Mission: Delicate!

Boundaries between residential areas and districts are non-existent. If the looting and violence continues, these riots are liable to spread to municipalities, towns and villages upstream from where they are currently taking place. Absent territorial enforcement, there is little reason to expect a slowing of the geographical spread of these events.

In a polarized America, uniformed law enforcement has often proven to be an incendiary presence; the very touch paper needed to ignite a storm of civil unrest, even as it comes in service of the citizenry. In the wake of the horrific videos of a uniformed officer denying the circulation of blood and oxygen to the brain of a detained, handcuffed, black American, members of that community will be further incensed by the increased appearance of uniformed personnel; whether that uniform is one worn by the police or a guardsman, in the event that the National Guard is deployed.

If the Guard is charged with restricting the movement of populations between areas, or dispersing those who seek to assemble, both of which are essentially law enforcement roles, the means of enforcement are inherently problematic.

Firstly, the use of non-lethal methods results in unintended lethal outcomes across a long enough timeline. Asphyxiation, a rubber bullet that impacts upon the temple instead of the leg or abdomen, a rushing crowd that tramples an individual to death; all of these realities exist.

Secondly, and of even greater concern, is what can occur if the restricted population senses that those sent as enforcers are unwilling to carry out their task because of concern over the aforementioned outcomes. Examples of such a dynamic are already taking place in Minneapolis, where police recently fled the scene of a riot.

Thirdly, the National Guard’s raison d’être is not policing a domestic populace. Striking the requisite balance of security enforcement and engagement with the citizenry will be a tremendous challenge, undertaken beneath an intensive media glare.

Sustained, district-wide riots and mob violence could serve as the gasoline poured onto the domestic fire currently fueled by the combination of coronavirus pandemic, political division, and socioeconomic inequality.

Upping the ante here is the fact that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, millions of young Americans, particularly men aged 18-35, are currently out of work, unengaged, restless and have little to no commitments preventing them from joining these riots. The added financial insecurity attendant the shelter in place orders that are still in effect, not only serve to further stir the impulse to steal and to loot - which is nonetheless unacceptable - but also increases the availability of bodies for the purpose of protest and, in turn, the number of individuals who can potentially cause, and be the victims of, harm; something that will reignite a cycle of violence and further rioting with each passing incident.

The unrest that could occur in the coming days and weeks may well be met with a police and National Guard presence that most Americans have never seen before. The societal tensions in the U.S. could well be exacerbated by an increased domestic military/law enforcement presence and the headlines that emanate from the scene will make for troubling viewing.

A tear gas canister fired toward a crowd for the sake of dispersal in order to avoid death does not constitute a headline. A child trampled during the course of that dispersal, very much does. Such can be the unintended outcome of massive guard deployment at this time.

And yet, without the safety provided by the Guard the anarchy and violence that could occur in their absence would surely make for even more troubling images, headlines, videos, tweets and posts. 

In order to succeed, it is essential that the Guard and the American citizenry receive strong, moral and clear leadership from elected officials and community leaders at the local, state and federal levels throughout their deployment.

As they are sent forward to confront this coming crisis, the National Guard may become the savior America needs, even if not the one she wants. Their task is not a simple one.

---

Richard Kemp, former Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan, was a member of the UK’s national crisis management committee, COBRA, and commanded British troops in the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere, often working alongside US forces. He completed eight tours of duty in Northern Ireland dealing with riot control, counter-terrorism and intelligence.

Benjamin Anthony is an IDF veteran and the co-founder & CEO of The MirYam Institute. He served in the Second Lebanon War, 2006, Operation Pillar of Defense, 2012, Operation Protective Edge, 2014. He has served in Judea and Samaria / The West Bank and along Israel’s northern border.

Cade Spivey is a publishing Adjunct at The MirYam Institute. He is a graduate of the United States Naval Academy and served three tours in the Navy as a Gunnery/Antiterrorism Officer, Damage Control Assistant, and Counter-Piracy Evaluator. He is currently a student at the Wake Forest University School of Law.