If you believe in the importance of free speech, subscribe to support uncensored, fearless writing—the more people who pay, the more time I can devote to this. Free speech matters. I am a university professor suspended because of a free speech issue, so I am not speaking from the bleachers.
Please subscribe and get at least three pieces /essays per week with open comments. It’s $5 per month and less than $USD 4. I know everyone says hey, it’s just a cup of coffee (with me, not per day but just one per month), but if you’re like me, you go, “Hey, I only want so many cups of coffee!” I get it. I don’t subscribe to many here because I can’t afford it.
If you subscribe to the free plan, you will receive one free (non-paywalled) article every two weeks on the weekend.
But I only ask that when you choose your coffee, please choose mine. Cheers.
________________________________________
Israelis and Jews are used to being politically gaslighted, so now the heat and the glare may not bother them as much as it would us common folk. As Jews and Israelis live in a Kafkesque world of moral inversion and double standards, perhaps they are habituated to seeing Kafka’s giant dung beetle walking by them on the way to the kitchen, and now they are no longer alarmed; they simply engage in casual banter with the monster beetle, perhaps complaining about the terrible cost of groceries in Tel Aviv.
In the case of Israel’s response to an act of war being declared against it, once again, we see the double standards and the expectation of unheard-of military practices. Of course, this is always suggested by those completely unschooled in military strategy, but it still makes us wonder why what is good for the goose is never good for the gander.
One might say it is ignorance and speculate that critics of Israel have little clue about military strategy or education on what armies have done in the past. Still, perhaps such good faith is unwarranted, and the critique is Jew hatred packaged up in the flimsiest of wrapping paper in the hope that everyone just looks at the pretty bow and tightly folder corners and never tears off the paper.
For in the annals of modern warfare, surprise attacks on civilian populations resulting in significant casualties have, regrettably, been a recurring phenomenon.
Yet, when Israel responds to such provocations, it faces a unique and disproportionate level of scrutiny.
So, we will examine five notable instances from the past century, including surprise attacks on October 7, 2023, which resulted in civilian casualties between 1,000 and 3,000.
In the last year, there have been many calls for Israel to declare a unilateral ceasefire.
Can you imagine the Soviets advancing on the chaos of Berlin in World War II and the modern equivalent of Melanie Joly, who, as she has many Arabs in her riding, seems to feel that she has a licence to act in their interests, whatever gets her elected, the devil himself could come to call and if her riding were full of devils she would, by her own words, vote in the devil’s interest - but imagine if Churchill and Roosevelt said, hey stop Comrade Stalin, we know you have had 80 million die, but please declare a ceasefire.
Let the good citizens of Berlin get time to have a break and allow the Germans to regroup and rearm, and we will see what happens. Herr Hitler has promised that he will behave, and so let us draw an end to all this warfare and bloodshed and all these civilian deaths!
This would be laughable; the goal of the military is to destroy the capacity of the enemy to make war against it, which has been the objective of war for thousands of years.
The Melanie Jolys and Justin Trudeau, unschooled in general but particularly unschooled in military history, are asking Israel to allow Hamas to rearm, to allow a continual missile barrage from Lebanon and Gaza, and allow Hamas to have time to make new plans, as they have publicly said their intention is, to make further Oct. 7 type attacks on Israel. This is the goal of the “peace lovers.” The only problem is that it would lead to more bloodshed, and more civilians would die. But the peace lovers would still see themselves as morally superior, and their hubris casts a long shadow over their reason.
And Israel is a nation that is somehow supposed to stop bitching and moaning about missiles falling on it, much in the way, we would react to a Winnipeger complaining about snow in January.
A unilateral ceasefire by a nation that has had war declared against it would be unthinkable in the annals of history, but Israel is always special.
In warfare, the notion of a victorious or militarily superior power halting its campaign just as it is on the brink of dismantling its enemy’s ability to wage war while leaving that enemy’s leadership intact and able to rearm and attack again has not happened.
Let us examine the five cases similar to the unprovoked attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
Remember that Israel has a population of 9,500,000, and so 1200 dead in Israel is the equivalent of 41,785 in the US, 8,468 in Britain, 180,323 in India and 178,488 in China.
Imagine the world community telling those countries that when that number of their citizens were murdered in cold blood by marauding savage neighbours, they should not respond.
At the same time, the bodies had yet to cool, and the world began to condemn the attacked country.
One can’t imagine it because it is unthinkable.
Welcome to the world of a Jew.
Five Cases
1. October 7, 2023 – Hamas Attack on Israel
On this date, Hamas launched a coordinated assault on southern Israel, resulting in approximately 1,200 Israeli deaths, including 695 civilians and 373 security personnel.
2. September 11, 2001 – Al-Qaeda Attacks on the United States
Al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four commercial aeroplanes, crashing them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania. These attacks caused nearly 3,000 civilian deaths.
3. December 7, 1941 – Attack on Pearl Harbor
The Japanese military conducted a surprise aerial attack on the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Approximately 2,400 Americans were killed, including both military personnel and civilians.
4. June 22, 1941 – Operation Barbarossa
Nazi Germany launched a surprise invasion of the Soviet Union. While exact civilian casualty numbers from the initial attacks are unclear, the invasion led to significant civilian deaths, up to a million.
5. August 6 and 9, 1945 – Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
The United States dropped atomic bombs on these Japanese cities, resulting in immediate civilian deaths estimated at 70,000–80,000 in Hiroshima and 40,000–75,000 in Nagasaki. While these numbers exceed 3,000, they are notable surprise attacks on civilians during wartime.
Comparison of Responses and Outcomes - Event Response and Outcome and Border Changes
Hamas Attack on Israel (2023)
Israel launched military operations in Gaza, targeting Hamas infrastructure. Civilian and military casualties occurred on both sides. There are no border changes.
Al-Qaeda Attacks on the U.S. (2001) ‘
Initiated the War on Terror, leading to invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq—significant military and civilian casualties over the ensuing years. There are no border changes.
Attack on Pearl Harbor (1941)
U.S. declared war on Japan, entering WWII. Led to an Allied victory and significant geopolitical changes. Borders changed. This led to the changing of borders.
Operation Barbarossa (1941)
The Soviet Union mounted a defence, leading to Eastern Front battles. Eventually, it contributed to Nazi Germany’s defeat, and the borders changed.
Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (1945)
Japan surrendered, ending WWII. This led to U.S. occupation and post-war reconstruction—no border change.
Civilian to Military Death Ratios and Responses
Here’s a detailed breakdown of the civilian-to-military death ratios for the responses to the surprise attacks, where data is available. Ratios help provide context for the proportionality and the human cost of military operations following such attacks.
The civilian-to-military ratio for the response to the Oct. 7 invasion has been 1.6:1.
Note: This was a unique fighting environment, with the enemy combatants having years to prepare their plans, hiding in 500 miles of tunnels, and using civilians as sacrifices in the interests of anti-Israel public relations. The density of the fighting environment, the fact that the enemy wasn’t uniformed and hid amongst civilians, and the fact that civilians were, at pain of death, often not allowed to vacate war zones also must be considered.
Furthermore, Israel provided a safety zone in a sandy area near Rafah where the soil conditions did not allow tunnels. Egypt, though having an abundance of space on the other side of the Rafah crossing, refused to accept Palestinians and fortified the Rafah crossing. These circumstances would, of course, raise civilian combatants' death rates.
1. Hamas Attack on Israel (October 7, 2023)
Military Deaths: Estimated 1,500 Hamas fighters (Israel Defense Forces estimates).
Civilian-to-Military Death Ratio: ~9:1
2. Al-Qaeda Attacks on the U.S. (September 11, 2001)
Civilian-to-Military Death Ratio: Approx. ~2:1 for civilians vs. Taliban combatants.
There were no calls for the US to enact a unilateral ceasefire. Instead, it pursued the group relentlessly across borders, and Taliban leaders were removed from power (though they later reemerged). The U.S. was not expected to cease its campaign before neutralising the immediate threat.
There was no suggestion that the U.S. should allow Al-Qaeda to regroup or maintain its infrastructure. Calls for a ceasefire or negotiations with Al-Qaeda were non-existent, and any such suggestion would have been ridiculed.
3. Pearl Harbor Attack (December 7, 1941)
Civilian-to-Military Death Ratio: Estimated ~1:10 (favouring military losses due to large-scale conventional warfare). The U.S. pursued a campaign of total war, culminating in Japan’s defeat and surrender. Japanese leadership was restructured, its military disarmed, and its capacity to wage war was eliminated. The idea of the U.S. negotiating a ceasefire with Japan and allowing it to rearm for another attack on Pearl Harbor would have been inconceivable. Instead, the Allies demanded total and unconditional surrender, occupation, and disarmament.
4. Operation Barbarossa (June 22, 1941)
Civilian-to-Military Death Ratio: Approximately 1:1 The Soviet response was ruthless and uncompromising, with no negotiation or ceasefire until Nazi Germany was completely defeated. No one expected the USSR to negotiate with the Nazis or allow them to retain power. Victory was defined as destroying the enemy’s capability to wage war and removing its leadership. Nazi Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union aimed to obliterate the USSR’s political and military infrastructure. In response, the Soviet Union fought back until it not only expelled German forces but pushed into Berlin and dismantled the Nazi regime.
5. Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (August 6 & 9, 1945)
• Civilian Deaths (1945): 110,000–150,000 combined in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
• Military Deaths (1945, from bombings): Approximately 20,000 Japanese military personnel.
The civilian-to-surprise attack ratio was then between 50 and 60:1, much higher than the Gaza civilian-to-military death ratio. The U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Japan, forcing its unconditional surrender and ending World War II. Following Japan’s surrender, the U.S. occupied Japan, oversaw its reconstruction, and ensured it could no longer pose a military threat. The U.S. did not stop short of total victory nor permit Japan to maintain its wartime leadership or military capacity. Again, no expectation existed that the U.S. would allow Japan to rearm or remain under militaristic leadership capable of launching another war.
Conclusion:
The historical record shows no instance of a nation halting its campaign to leave its enemy’s leadership intact, armed, and capable of waging future wars. Military strategy consistently dictates that a threat be neutralised entirely, particularly when the enemy has demonstrated clear intent to attack again.
Analysis of Civilian-to-Military Death Ratios
Proportionality in Conflict:
Ratios vary widely depending on the context of the conflict. Conventional warfare (e.g., WWII) often resulted in lower civilian-to-military death ratios compared to insurgency or urban combat scenarios like those seen in Gaza or Afghanistan. But when armies in Berlin or Stalingrad were faced with dense fighting climates, the radios climbed, and the ratio of civilians to combatant death in the German Ruhr Valley (WWII) was 6:1.
Hamas vs. Israel:
The high civilian-to-military ratio (~9:1) in Gaza underscores the challenges of urban warfare and the Hamas strategy of embedding fighters within civilian areas, which has amplified civilian casualties.
Unique Scrutiny on Israel:
Historical precedents show that civilian casualties are a tragic but common consequence of military responses to surprise attacks. Yet, Israel’s actions consistently face criticism disproportionate to similar or even more devastating campaigns by other nations.
Israel takes specific actions to minimise civilian deaths during military operations in Gaza, recognising the challenges of fighting in a dense urban environment where combatants often embed themselves within civilian populations. These actions include advanced technology, intelligence gathering, and warning procedures to reduce harm to non-combatants. While other nations have sporadically used precision weapons and some advance notification, nobody has systematically built it into their operations like Israel.
Examples include:
Israel’s efforts to minimise civilian deaths - Israel provides warnings to civilians in targeted areas through multiple channels: Phone Calls and Text Messages, Leaflet Drops and Broadcast Announcements. Radio broadcasts and loudspeakers sometimes communicate warnings. Israel relies heavily on precision-guided munitions to target specific military objectives while reducing collateral damage. Advanced intelligence and surveillance technology (e.g., drones and satellite imagery) are used to pinpoint targets accurately. Israeli strikes often focus on military infrastructure, tunnels, weapons caches, and leadership while attempting to avoid civilian casualties. Intelligence Gathering to Identify Civilian Presence - Israel uses extensive intelligence gathering, including real-time drone surveillance and human intelligence (HUMINT), to confirm the presence of combatants versus civilians. If civilians are identified in or near a target area, operations are often delayed, altered, or cancelled to minimise harm.
Evacuation Notices and Humanitarian Corridor - Israel sometimes designates safe corridors or encourages civilians to evacuate specific areas before major operations. Despite Hamas's efforts to block or discourage evacuations, Israel has persisted in promoting civilian movement to safety.
Postponing or Aborting Strikes -Israeli commanders have aborted strikes when surveillance reveals the presence of civilians, especially children, near a military target. This decision-making process involves real-time monitoring and balancing military necessity with humanitarian considerations.
Unique challenges facing Israel
Some Gazans refuse to leave their homes for various reasons, including fear, lack of alternatives, and distrust. Additionally, Hamas has been documented preventing evacuations and using civilians as human shields, further endangering the population. This combination makes the evacuation of civilians during the conflict in Gaza extremely difficult. Israel also faces embedded military assets (e.g., weapons, command centres) in civilian areas, including schools, hospitals, mosques, and residential buildings, and the use of civilians as human shields to deter strikes and increase civilian casualties for propaganda purposes. There are also tunnel networks under densely populated neighbourhoods, complicating military operations.
While no military operation in urban areas can completely prevent civilian casualties, Israel’s measures reflect an intentional effort to reduce harm while addressing security threats.
In each of these instances, the nations subjected to surprise attacks responded with military force, often resulting in extensive casualties and, in some cases, significant geopolitical changes. Notably, the responses to the attacks on Pearl Harbor and during Operation Barbarossa led to substantial shifts in national borders and global power structures. The United States’ reaction to the September 11 attacks initiated prolonged military engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq, with considerable loss of life and regional instability.’
Yet, when Israel responds to attacks such as the one on October 7, 2023, it faces unparalleled scrutiny and criticism. This double standard becomes evident when comparing Israel’s actions to those of other nations under similar circumstances.
The expectation that Israel should exercise not simple restraint - as they do - but that they should not engage the enemy because they are always embedded in civilian populations is a standard never applied to other countries.
In conclusion, history demonstrates that nations subjected to surprise attacks on their civilians have consistently exercised their right to self-defence, often leading to extensive military operations and significant casualties. The unique scrutiny applied to Israel’s responses reflects a double standard and disregards the historical precedents set by other nations in similar situations.
Why Do People Expect Israel to Do What Defies Military Convention and What Has Never Happened in the Annals of War?
The expectation that Israel should halt its military campaign, allow Hamas to remain in power, and leave its leadership capable of rearming is inconsistent with historical precedent. Several reasons contribute to this double standard:
1. Disproportionate Scrutiny: Israel faces unparalleled media and political scrutiny, with its actions often framed in moral terms rather than strategic necessity. This is rarely applied to other nations responding to attacks.
2. Misconceptions About Proportionality: Critics often misunderstand “proportionality” in war, demanding a tit-for-tat response instead of recognising the goal of neutralising a threat entirely.
3. Selective Humanitarian Concern: While civilian casualties in Gaza are deeply tragic, they are used as a rationale to argue against Israel’s military objectives, ignoring the role of Hamas in embedding its operations within civilian areas.
4. Political Bias: In some circles, opposition to Israel’s existence as a Jewish state informs calls for restraint, with critics advocating outcomes that leave it vulnerable to future attacks.
5. Expectation of Unique Restraint: Israel, a liberal democracy, is often held to higher moral standards than other nations. Critics demand restraint that would be unthinkable for any other country under similar circumstances.
Conclusion
No army in history has willingly halted its campaign on the brink of victory, allowing its enemy to regroup and attack again. The expectation that Israel should do so ignores historical precedents and defies the logic of self-defence.
As the cases of Pearl Harbor, 9/11, Barbarossa, and others demonstrate, nations act decisively to eliminate existential threats.
The double standard applied to Israel reflects political biases and unrealistic moral expectations rather than a serious consideration of historical norms or strategic realities. Selective and arbitrary standards in a world where data and precedent are readily available speak not only to hypocrisy but more likely to anti-semitism cleverly camouflaged by concerns for civilians.
_____________________________________________________________________
I always thought that Gregor Samsa woke up as a cockroach, not a dung beetle.