Lesser of two evils

The BBC has reported that Pope Francis has called both major US presidential candidates "against life" and advised Catholic voters to choose the "lesser evil" when casting their ballots in the November election. This news conference, as he wrapped up a 12-day tour through southeast Asia, has been covered by many world news outlets. Five themes have come to mind in reflection about the Pontiff's advice.

Views and the Vatican

1. Forgive them, they know not what they do.(Luke 23:34).

Christians are familiar with this admonition of Jesus from the cross that originally referred to the people responsible for His crucifixion. Many of the followers of the political scenarios identified by Francis would do well to understand the grief and suffering that has moved people to the paths “against life” that they polarize for political advantage. An extension of political rhetoric to include “walking in the shoes” of the people concerned about the consequences of political policy is required. 

2. Misinformation and disinformation disguises the full story.

The loss of truth that accompanies misinformation and disinformation about the actions and consequences of the alternate political policy is extremely dangerous to the operation of a democracy which can only operate at its best motivated by truth, goodness, and beauty as aspirations for all.

3. Real needs for support and care are present in the cause.

The political effort to achieve policy objectives needs to recognize that people have real needs for support and care that may be denied or reduced by polarized persecution of groups with differing desires.

4. Demonizing others is a path to destruction. 

There seems to be more than enough evil done against groups that have been demonized in political rhetoric. Death and destruction have too often been the response advocated and actioned by misinformed zealots to the perception intentionally created that the opposition are demons.

5. Acting in conscience requires freedom to choose. 

Much political rhetoric lauds “freedom”. The conscientious choices that are required to be our best people and create our best society cannot be coerced. We move toward the justice we seek through our freedom to act according to our conscience.

There are tragic results when political polarization leans toward policy that casts the opposing side as “evil” and fails to address the suffering and pain that they may encounter as a consequence. 

Update on AI and IHL in Gaza

Liam Stack who spent many years as a Middle East correspondent based in Cairo reports from Tel Aviv for the New York Times that Israel Defends Strike on School Compound as Condemnation Mounts.

Distinction Proportionality Data

The article on AI Distinction Proportionality IHL in Gaza (https://tinyurl.com/ye27jwm8) was

posted Tue, May 28, 2024. It argued that the Military Forces of Israel have access to very sophisticated AI supported tools, similar to those of the United States, that not only permit, but require, the strictest application of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) in the areas of distinction and proportionality. Failure to do so exposes Israeli authorities to war crime accusations and further isolation from traditional allies in Western Democracies.

Simon Frankel Pratt, a lecturer in political science at the School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Melbourne, posted an argument to FP, Foreign Policy Magazine. His article is an expert's point of view on a current article entitled “When AI Decides Who Lives and Dies”. The Israeli military’s algorithmic targeting has created dangerous new precedents. Investigative journalism published in April by Israeli media outlet Local Call (and its English version, +972 Magazine) shows that the Israeli military has established a mass assassination program of unprecedented size, blending algorithmic targeting with a high tolerance for bystander deaths and injuries.

Local Call and +972 Magazine have shown that the IDF may be criminally negligent in its willingness to strike targets when the risk of bystanders dying is very high, but because the targets selected by Lavender are ostensibly combatants, the IDF’s airstrikes are not intended to exterminate a civilian population. They have followed the so-called operational logic of targeted killing even if their execution has resembled saturation bombing in its effects.

Although Israel often presents the IDF as being in exemplary conformance to liberal and Western norms, the way that the IDF has used AI in Gaza, according to the Local Call and +972, is in stark contrast to those same norms. In U.S. military doctrine, all strikes must strive to keep bystander deaths below the determined “non-combatant casualty cut-off value” (NCV).

NCVs for most U.S. operations have been very low, and historically, so have Israel’s—at least when it comes to targeted killing. For example, when Hamas commander Salah Shehadeh was killed along with 14 others in an Israeli airstrike in 2002, then-IDF Chief of Staff Moshe Yaalon said that he would not have allowed the operation to happen if he’d known it would kill that many others. In interviews over the years, other Israeli officials involved in the operation similarly stated that the high number of bystander deaths was a major error. (Stack, n.d.)

Local Call and +972 revealed that, by contrast, the assassination of Hamas battalion commander Wissam Farhat during the current Israel-Hamas war had an NCV of more than 100 people—and that the IDF anticipated that it would kill around that many.

An Israeli intelligence source interviewed by +972 Magazine claimed that time constraints made it impossible to “incriminate” every target, which raised the IDF’s tolerance for the margin of statistical error from using AI-powered target recommendation systems—as well as its tolerance for the associated “collateral damage.”

This matters to experts in international law and military ethics because of the doctrine of double effect, which permits foreseeable but unintended harms if the intended act does not depend on those harms occurring, such as in the case of an airstrike against a legitimate target that would happen whether or not there were bystanders. But in the case of the Israel-Hamas war, most lawyers and ethicists—and apparently some number of IDF officers—see these strikes as failing to meet any reasonable standard of proportionality while stretching the notion of discrimination beyond reasonable interpretations. In other words, they may still be war crimes. (Stack, n.d.)

The Military Forces of Israel have access to very sophisticated AI supported tools, similar to those of the United States, that not only permit, but require, the strictest application of International Humanitarian Law in the areas of distinction and proportionality. Failure to do so exposes Israeli authorities to war crime accusations and further isolation from traditional allies in Western Democracies.

References

Stack, L. (n.d.). Israel Defends Strike on School Compound as Condemnation Mounts. The New York Times - Breaking News, US News, World News and Videos. Retrieved September 12, 2024, from https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/09/12/world/israel-hamas-gaza-war 

Netanyahu Running Out of Options

Bethan McKernan in Jerusalem reports for the Guardian that there is a growing sense in Israel – not for the first time – that Netanyahu is running out of options.

“day after” plan for Gaza now!

“He is world champion at stalling, making all sides sick of him and ultimately evading paying the bill when it comes due,” the commentator Ben Caspit wrote in the centrist Israeli daily Ma’ariv on Tuesday. But even a political master such as Netanyahu couldn’t hold off much longer on making a decision on a deal, Caspit said. “He has to make a real decision. Not a sort-of decision, not a pretend decision, not an on-condition decision and not a temporary decision. A decision.”

Far-right members of the prime minister’s coalition have threatened to quit the coalition if Israel “surrenders” before “total victory” over Hamas, while his leading rival, the centrist Benny Gantz, has said he will resign from the emergency unity government if Netanyahu does not commit to a deal and “day after” plan for Gaza by 8 June. (McKernan, n.d.)

Staying in office is Netanyahu’s best chance of evading prosecution for corruption on charges he denies. But the longtime leader was forced into a corner when Joe Biden unveiled a new truce and hostage release plan, which he said was an Israeli proposal.

The Middle East and Africa section of the Economist reports on the revolt against Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu from his war cabinet and generals in the Israel-Hamas war who want a new plan—and a new boss.

Besides the generals, two key figures have flipped from being reluctant partners of Mr Netanytahu, as ministers in his war cabinet, into open opponents. On May 15th Yoav Gallant, the defence minister, who is also the subject of a request from the ICC, stated in public that his plans to create a new governing entity in Gaza, with heavy Palestinian representation, “had not been discussed and worse, no alternative has been proposed instead”. Three days later, Benny Gantz, Mr Netanyahu’s most powerful rival, said that “crucial decisions have not been made,” and accused a “small minority” of “taking control of the bridge of the Israeli ship and steering it to the rocks”. He said he would quit the war cabinet if there was no change of course by June 8th. (The Revolt Against Binyamin Netanyahu, 2024)

If Mr Netanyahu bends to the demands of his more centrist critics, or is toppled, the second question is what a new policy on Gaza would look like.

The likes of Mr Gantz and Mr Gallant agree that Israel should not run Gaza’s affairs; all implicitly think, however, that the IDF should retain a strong security presence in the strip. There is less agreement on the end-game that follows any de-escalation of the war. The Biden administration wants a pathway to an eventual Palestinian state. Mr Gallant and Mr Gantz are reluctant to endorse this, not least because it would be unpopular in Israel.

References

McKernan, B. (n.d.). Pressure grows on Benjamin Netanyahu to back Gaza ceasefire plan. the Guardian. Retrieved June 6, 2024, from https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/04/pressure-grows-on-benjamin-netanyahu-to-back-gaza-ceasefire-plan 

The revolt against Binyamin Netanyahu. (2024, May 19). The Economist. Retrieved June 6, 2024, from https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2024/05/19/the-revolt-against-binyamin-netanyahu 

AI Distinction Proportionality IHL in Gaza

As civilians become more familiar with online applications of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in gathering information and preparing reports, it is important to consider the ethical and strategic use of AI in the warfare in Gaza.

AI and impact on death in Gaza

Military applications of AI include PID (positive identification) and prediction of weapons effects. International Humanitarian Law (IHL) requires military forces to apply distinction between civilians, civilian infrastructure and military targets and to take action to avoid civilian attack, injury, and death. Overall battlefield awareness applications of AI allow prediction of the effects of weapons systems and permits the choice of weapon that is proportional to the required military objective. 

John G. Thorne, Lt Col, USAF, has authored a paper, Warriors and War Algorithms: Leveraging Artificial Intelligence to Enable Ethical Targeting as a component of a course in Ethics and Emerging Military Technology at Naval War College, Newport, RI

The Department of Defense’s (DoD) primary form of Distinction is through Positive Identification (PID) PID is defined as “the reasonable certainty that a functionally and geospatially defined object of attack is a legitimate military target in accordance with the Law of War and applicable Rules Of Engagement.” More simply, it answers the Who?, What?, and Where? questions regarding an entity. PID is also acknowledged as the foundational consideration in the DoD’s collateral damage methodology, which its Proportionality assessments are based on. It states that an assessment begins with the question, “Can I PID the object I want to affect?” While PID can technically be achieved through a combination of different intelligence sources, invariably a visual component is required in the final analysis. Therefore, the most commonly known algorithms associated with PID are related to imagery interpretation.

The DoD’s Joint Technical Coordinating Group for Munitions Effectiveness (JTCG/ME) provides software that models the accuracy and explosive yield of warhead, guidance, and fusing combinations found in the Joint Munitions Effectiveness Manuals (JMEM). It also provides vulnerability data for potential targets, based on their size and construction. The JMEM software allows the human analyst to create a specific engagement scenario by manually selecting a warhead, guidance system, fuse combination, and target characteristics. The JMEM algorithm then analyzes hundreds to thousands of iterations of that scenario, usually leveraging a Monte Carlo method, to determine a probable level of damage that scenario would create. (Thorne, n.d., #)

Yuval Abraham, a journalist and filmmaker based in Jerusalem, in an article for +972 magazine, in partnership with Local Call, reports that the Israeli army has marked tens of thousands of Gazans as suspects for assassination, using an AI targeting system with little human oversight and a permissive policy for casualties.

A new investigation by +972 Magazine and Local Call reveals that the Israeli army has developed an artificial intelligence-based program known as “Lavender.” 

Formally, the Lavender system is designed to mark all suspected operatives in the military wings of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), including low-ranking ones, as potential bombing targets. The sources told +972 and Local Call that, during the first weeks of the war, the army almost completely relied on Lavender, which clocked as many as 37,000 Palestinians as suspected militants — and their homes — for possible air strikes.

“We were not interested in killing [Hamas] operatives only when they were in a military building or engaged in a military activity,” A., an intelligence officer, told +972 and Local Call. “On the contrary, the IDF bombed them in homes without hesitation, as a first option. It’s much easier to bomb a family’s home. The system is built to look for them in these situations.”

The Lavender machine joins another AI system, “The Gospel,” about which information was revealed in a previous investigation by +972 and Local Call in November 2023, as well as in the Israeli military’s own publications. A fundamental difference between the two systems is in the definition of the target: whereas The Gospel marks buildings and structures that the army claims militants operate from, Lavender marks people — and puts them on a kill list.

In addition, according to the sources, when it came to targeting alleged junior militants marked by Lavender, the army preferred to only use unguided missiles, commonly known as “dumb” bombs (in contrast to “smart” precision bombs), which can destroy entire buildings on top of their occupants and cause significant casualties. “You don’t want to waste expensive bombs on unimportant people — it’s very expensive for the country and there’s a shortage [of those bombs],” said C., one of the intelligence officers. Another source said that they had personally authorized the bombing of “hundreds” of private homes of alleged junior operatives marked by Lavender, with many of these attacks killing civilians and entire families as “collateral damage.”

B., a senior officer who used Lavender, echoed to +972 and Local Call that in the current war, officers were not required to independently review the AI system’s assessments, in order to save time and enable the mass production of human targets without hindrances.

“Everything was statistical, everything was neat — it was very dry,” B. said. He noted that this lack of supervision was permitted despite internal checks showing that Lavender’s calculations were considered accurate only 90 percent of the time; in other words, it was known in advance that 10 percent of the human targets slated for assassination were not members of the Hamas military wing at all. (Abraham, n.d.)

Burak Elmali in an article posted to the Anadolu Agency (AA) web site notes that  Israel’s use of advanced software tools underscores a harrowing reality: AI, when misapplied, can facilitate atrocities of catastrophic proportions The TRT World Research Centre reports that the conduct of warfare is among the many domains influenced by AI, and the latter’s impact on this field is no longer theoretical. Gaza is a case in point. This evolution prompts profound questions about human agency and responsibility within AI debates. What if the person wielding the technological prowess harbours a militaristic ideology so extreme that it sanctions genocidal actions?

Over a period exceeding six months, Israel has conducted airstrikes with indiscriminate genocidal intent, as revealed through the candid admissions of numerous military intelligence insiders. Their confession-like statements about Israel’s use of advanced software tools, such as Lavender and Where’s Daddy, underscores a harrowing reality: AI, when misapplied, can facilitate atrocities of catastrophic proportions, and turn out to be as inhumane as possible.

The Israeli Defence Ministry’s communication often follows the path of censorship, obfuscation, and deflection tactics. This time was no different. The spokesperson dismissed the accusations with a mere denial. Yet, the stark reality reflected in the civilian death toll leaves little room to ignore the assertions made about the AI-driven genocidal undertaking attributed to Lavender. The algorithm used indicated the acceptance of 15-20 civilian casualties for one low-ranking Hamas member and up to 100 for one senior Hamas member. 

Such robotisation of inhumanity is very disturbing. Alas, the figures are aligned with the reported death tolls in Gaza. Furthermore, the use of unguided bombs, which cause enormous devastation in heavily populated areas in scenarios involving unconfirmed junior Hamas members, suggests that Israel is conducting more war crimes, this time pretexting the use of AI. (Elmalı & Kilavuz, 2024)

The Military Forces of Israel have access to very sophisticated AI supported tools, similar to those of the United States, that not only permit, but require, the strictest application of International Humanitarian Law in the areas of distinction and proportionality. Failure to do so exposes Israeli authorities to war crime accusations and further isolation from traditional allies in Western Democracies.

References

Abraham, Y. (2024, April 3). 'Lavender': The AI machine directing Israel's bombing spree in Gaza. +972 Magazine. Retrieved May 28, 2024, from https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/ 

Elmalı, B., & Kilavuz, İ. F. (2024, May 1). Israel Has Tainted AI with Genocide – TRT World Research Centre. TRT World Research Centre. Retrieved May 17, 2024, from https://researchcentre.trtworld.com/perspectives/israel-has-tainted-ai-with-genocide/ 

Thorne, J. G. (n.d.). Warriors and War Algorithms: Leveraging Artificial Intelligence to Enable Ethical Targeting. Ethics and Emerging Military Technology Graduate Certificate. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/trecms/pdf/AD1181382.pdf 

Next US President and Relationship to Israel

Dahlia Scheindlin, a pollster, a Policy Fellow at Century International, and a columnist at Haaretz, reports on how Gaza has accelerated the social and political forces driving America and Israel apart.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken and President Joe Biden meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli officials, Tel Aviv, October 2023

On May 8, 2024, the Biden administration confirmed that it was withholding a major weapons shipment to the Israel Defense Forces. It was the biggest step that the United States has taken in decades to restrain Israel’s actions. The decision concerned a consignment of 2,000-pound bombs—weapons that the United States generally avoids in urban warfare, and which White House officials believed that Israel would use in its Rafah operation in the Gaza Strip—and did not affect other weapons transfers. Nonetheless, the administration’s willingness to employ measures that could materially constrain Israel’s behavior reflected its growing frustration with Israel’s nearly eight-month-old war in Gaza.

Washington prides itself on its tradition of bipartisan support for Israel, but in reality a partisan gap has been growing for years. Many Democratic voters, and younger Americans generally, have become critical of Israel’s long-standing denial of Palestinian human rights and national self-determination. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s populist, illiberal policies and his theocratic governing-coalition allies have alienated them further. On the other hand, Republicans and many religious conservatives have seized on support for Israel—including unrestrained backing for right-wing Israeli governments—as an article of faith, and, increasingly, a political litmus test. (Scheindlin, n.d.)

Despite the Biden administration’s strong support for Israel after October 7 and through much of the war—and despite the fact that a large majority of American Jews have traditionally voted Democratic—Israelis show that they prefer Donald Trump to Joe Biden by a wide margin. Unlike in past decades, a majority of Israelis also approve of their leaders’ defying U.S. policy preferences. And it’s not clear that these Israelis are much concerned about a rupture in the U.S.-Israeli relationship or that Israeli defiance might one day jeopardize the extensive military aid on which Israel relies. (Scheindlin, n.d.)

By contrast, even before he entered the Oval Office, Biden’s lifelong record as a devoted pro-Israel Democrat left many Israelis cold. In October 2020, ahead of the U.S. election that year, a survey conducted by the Israel Democracy Institute (IDI) found that 63 percent of Israelis preferred to see Trump reelected; just 17 percent preferred Biden. Following Biden’s victory, an even larger percentage of Israelis—73 percent—said that Biden was likely to be somewhat or much worse than Trump for Israel, according to another IDI poll.

By contrast, in April 2024, after the United States gathered an international coalition that included even Arab states to provide extraordinary military support to Israel, using their combined air defenses to thwart a massive Iranian missile attack, Israelis seemed no more favorable toward the Biden administration than before. Following the attack, the IDI reminded Israelis of this highly effective coalition and asked if they would now “agree in principle to the future establishment of a Palestinian state, in return for a permanent regional defense agreement.” Israeli numbers didn’t budge: a majority of 55 percent rejected the idea, while just 34 percent agreed. The rate was even lower among Israeli Jews: only 26 percent agreed. (Scheindlin, n.d.)

Israeli political analyst Dahlia Scheindlin joined The Sunday Magazine guest host David Common to talk about how developments at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) are straining relationships with some of Israel’s traditional allies.

Israel is facing renewed pressure in the war with Hamas, between the International Court of Justice ordering the country to halt its Rafah offensive, and the International Criminal Court's top prosecutor seeking arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant. Israeli political analyst Dahlia Scheindlin joined Common to talk about how these and other developments are adding to tension in Israeli society, political divisions within its government, and strain in the country's relationships with some allies. (How ICJ, ICC Moves Are Playing Out in Israel Amid War With Hamas, n.d.)

The commentary by Israeli political analyst Dahlia Scheindlin reveals a drifting apart of American and Israel over the conduct of the war in Gaza and the trajectory of right wing political aspirations that are contrary to the two state target for Palestine and Israel.

References

How ICJ, ICC moves are playing out in Israel amid war with Hamas. (n.d.). The Sunday Magazine. Retrieved May 26, 2024, from https://www.cbc.ca/radio/sunday/the-sunday-magazine-for-may-26-2024-1 

Scheindlin, D. (n.d.). Can America’s Special Relationship With Israel Survive? Foreign Affairs. Retrieved May 26, 2024, from https://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/can-americas-special-relationship-israel-survive