What Balaam and Blinken have in common—withholding the facts

When Balak’s dignitaries reached Balaam he told them that he can only act with the approval of God. That same night God appeared to him and said “Do not go with them. You must not curse the people, for they are blessed” (Numbers 22:12) and the next morning Balaam told the dignitaries, “Go back to your country, for the Lord will not let me go with you” (Numbers 22:13) which should have been the conclusion to the story. Nevertheless, Balak sent another round of dignitaries who were more numerous and distinguished than the previous ones, and offered Balaam a significant reward if only he would agree to curse the Israelites. Once again, Balaam insisted that he cannot do anything contrary to the divine will but he told Balak that he was willing to consult God again.

For reasons that are not entirely clear, God now allows Balaam to go with Balak, as long as he does exactly as God commands. Balaam then conveys this message to Balak in no uncertain terms (Numbers 22:38) but Balak refuses to back down. He then proceeds to lead Balaam to a number of different locations where the people, or parts thereof, are visible (it was believed that the object of a curse must be within sight), and to offer a series of sacrifices to God in the hope of manipulating God’s will, but each and every time that Balaam opened his mouth he ended up uttering God’s blessings of Israel rather than His curses. Eventually, Balak became frustrated and he and Balaam parted ways.

The question one may ask is, if Balaam had told Balak from the outset that God disapproves of this mission, why does Balak keep trying again and again? Is Balak just stubborn, is he desperate, or is there perhaps some other way of understanding his persistence?

I believe the key to answering this question can be found in what Balaam did not report to Balak. Note the difference between what God had told Balaam and what Balaam reported to Balak. God had said “You must not curse the people, for they are blessed”, but Balaam told Balak “Go back to your country, for the Lord will not let me go with you” (see above) without explaining why. In other words, had Balaam told Balak that the Israelite people “are blessed” then Balak would have understood that all attempts to curse them are doomed to fail. By withholding this critical fact, Balaam led Balak to believe that, with Balaam’s help along with the holy sacrifices, God’s mind might be changed.

Fast forward to today. No matter how much the IDF today tries its best to avoid civilian casualties in its war against Hamas, and no matter how much Haman embeds itself within the civilian population, stores weapons in civilian infrastructure—such as homes, schools, mosques, hospitals and cemeteries—and launches rockets from UN facilities and residential areas, and tells residents to ignore Israeli warnings to flee, it is Israel, rather than Hamas, that is inevitably blamed when innocent civilians are killed. Indeed, right after Israel’s recent targeted attack against Muhammad Deif—who, along with Yahya Sinwar, was the mastermind of the brutal October 7 massacre that left 1,200 Israelis dead and another 250 as hostages—US Secretary of State Antony Blinken issued his customary denunciation of Israel regarding the “unacceptably high” number of civilian casualties.

And here too I believe that there is one critical fact that is either overlooked, or, even worse, purposely withheld from the conversation, and that is IDF’s extraordinary success in protecting civilian life within the context of urban warfare. Here are excerpts from an article on the subject written by John Spencer (https://www.newsweek.com/israel-has-created-new-standard…), a retired United States Army officer, researcher of urban warfare, and the current chairman of urban warfare studies at the Modern War Institute:

“In my long career studying and advising on urban warfare for the U.S. military, I’ve never known an army to take such measures to attend to the enemy’s civilian population, especially while simultaneously combating the enemy in the very same buildings. In fact, by my analysis, Israel has implemented more precautions to prevent civilian harm than any military in history—above and beyond what international law requires and more than the U.S. did in its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The international community, and increasingly the United States, barely acknowledges these measures while repeatedly excoriating the IDF for not doing enough to protect civilians—even as it confronts a ruthless terror organization holding its citizens hostage. Instead, the U.S. and its allies should be studying how they can apply the IDF’s tactics for protecting civilians, despite the fact that these militaries would almost certainly be extremely reluctant to employ these techniques because of how it would disadvantage them in any fight with an urban terrorist army like Hamas….

Analysts who should know better are still engaging in condemnation of the IDF based on the level of destruction that’s still occurred—destruction that is unavoidable against an enemy that embeds in a vast tunnel system under civilian sites in dense urban terrain. This effects-based condemnation or criticism is not how the laws of war work, or violations determined. These and other analysts say the destruction and civilian causalities must either stop or be avoided in an alternative form of warfare…

Israel has not created a gold standard in civilian harm mitigation in war. That implies there is a standard in civilian casualties in war that is acceptable or not acceptable; that zero civilian deaths in war is remotely possible and should be the goal; that there is a set civilian-to-combatant ratio in war no matter the context or tactics of the enemy. But all available evidence shows that Israel has followed the laws of war, legal obligations, best practices in civilian harm mitigation and still found a way to reduce civilian casualties to historically low levels.

Those calling for Israel to find an alternative to inflicting civilian casualties to lower amounts (like zero) should be honest that this alternative would leave the Israeli hostages in captivity and allow Hamas to survive the war. The alternative to a nation’s survival cannot be a path to extinction.”

If Spencer’s analysis is correct, then the oft-repeated accusation levelled by Blinken and others at Israel regarding the “unacceptably high” number of civilian casualties in Gaza is utterly baseless. Furthermore, by continuing to withhold the facts regarding urban warfare and Israel’s success in reducing “civilian casualties to historically low levels”, and by creating false hopes and expectations that Israel can somehow change its course of action and still win the war, they are doing more harm than good.

Thus, just as Balaam’s withholding of the facts about Israel led to false hopes and unrealistic expectations, modern day leaders who withhold critical facts about Israel’s military efforts today lead to false hopes and unjustified accusations. Understanding the full picture is essential for a fair and honest evaluation of Israel’s status and behavior, both then and now.