Ben Rhodes’s NYT piece on Gaza is misinformation disguised as moral reality - opinion

A feature-length essay of more than two thousand words about Gaza should meet the most basic journalistic standards. This one does not.

It repeats misinformation, inserts falsehoods, and advances a moral narrative that bears no resemblance to the laws of war or the realities of modern conflict. Worse than the errors are the implications. If these arguments are taken seriously inside Washington, they threaten not only Israel’s security but America’s.

An explicit condition of the rules-based order since 1945 is that sovereign nations may defend themselves after an armed attack. It is the most basic tenet of the UN Charter. Israel did not choose this war. It was launched against Israel on October 7 when Hamas executed a large-scale cross-border assault that killed more than 1,200 people and kidnapped more than 250.

Any democratic state, including the United States, would have responded with immediate and overwhelming military force to achieve its goals as quickly as possible. That is the standard the author refuses to apply to Israel.

The argument that President Biden gave Israel unconditional support is also false. The administration held up key arms shipments, including large-diameter munitions and other vital equipment. It pressured Israel for months not to enter Rafah, even though Hamas leaders and Israeli hostages were there. No one in the region believes Israel has enjoyed unconditional American backing, especially not Israeli soldiers who have been forced to adapt operations in real time because of delayed or restricted US support.

The article relies on an emotionally charged but morally incoherent equivalency. It argues that if one believes a Palestinian child has equal dignity to an Israeli or American child, one cannot support the Israeli government while hiding behind platitudes about peace. This argument is appalling. It ignores the most fundamental distinction in the laws of war.

There is a clear difference between a baby kidnapped by Hamas and murdered with bare hands and the tragic death of a child in urban combat who is being used as a human shield by Hamas. The laws of war do not judge outcomes alone. They judge intent, precautions, proportionality, distinction, and military necessity.

Israel has taken more measures to reduce civilian harm than any military in history, including layered warnings, evacuation corridors, daily pauses, roof knocking, safe zones, and an unprecedented combination of precision fires and restrictions on ground maneuver that often put its own soldiers at greater risk to protect civilians. I have studied and documented urban warfare for decades. No other military has attempted to do what the IDF has done in Gaza.

The author also invokes the biggest lie of this war, the claim that Israel is committing genocide. There is no genocide in Gaza. Israel has no intent to destroy in whole or in part the civilian population of Gaza. It sought to destroy Hamas as a military and political organization while doing more to feed, house, vaccinate, provide medical care, and prevent harm to the civilian population than any nation in history. Wanting to destroy your enemy is not genocide.

It is war. War is not illegal, and in some cases, it is necessary. Although the author cites the claims of misguided human rights groups, academics, and a biased United Nations-commissioned study, there are many more academics, military professionals, and legal experts who have clearly stated that Israel’s actions in Gaza do not meet any standard for genocide.

Every nation, including the United States, has faced the moral dilemma of civilian deaths in a legitimate war of self-defense. Nations must prioritize their own citizens and their own survival. That is not hypocrisy. It is a foundation of the laws of armed conflict. I wonder what the author would say about the urban operations of World War II or the US campaigns in Seoul, Hue, Fallujah, Mosul, and Raqqa. The moral argument in the article collapses the moment it is applied to any conflict other than Gaza. That reveals its purpose. It is designed to delegitimize Israel’s right to wage a lawful war and to delegitimize any American support for that war, not to explain the rules-based order. It also rewards the strategy of using civilians, protected sites, and dense urban terrain as shields.

One of the most alarming parts of the piece is not its factual errors but its worldview. As an American citizen, it is frightening to read such naive beliefs from someone who once served as a deputy national security adviser to the President. The author suggests that supporting Israel’s war of self-defense violates democratic values. If that view guided US decision-making during a crisis, we would invite disaster. In any major threat to the United States, a future President will face the decision to use force in defense of ourselves or our allies, such as countries in NATO. The logic promoted in this piece implies that America should respond to mass casualty attacks with inaction or with a form of moral self-negation that no state can survive.

Israel is fighting a war it did not start, under legal constraints that no enemy of ours has ever respected, while trying to rescue hostages brutally taken from their homes. That is the reality. Everything else in the article is rhetoric designed to obscure what both Israel and America know to be true. Supporting an ally in a lawful war of self-defense is not a betrayal of our values. It is an expression of them.