Soldiers conducting the slaughter of innocent civilians under the excuse of obeying orders are war criminals, no matter which country is guilty, writesMark Beeson.

ONE OF THE MORE infamous products of the criminal trials that followed World War 2 was the so-calledNuremberg defence. In essence, this revolved around the claim that people who were responsible for murdering innocent, mainly Jewish, civilians were just following the orders given to them by a superior.

Not only did the defendants claim this absolved them of personal responsibility, but their lawyers implied that there was something about German culture that made its people especially likely to obey those in positions of power. Clearly, this doesnt account for the Germans that fled the Nazi regime or even those who tried to resist its growing menace before the war, but it may explainwhy some ideas took hold.

In one of the greatest of historical ironies, debates about personal responsibility and the legitimacy of orders from superiors have gained renewed currency. Israels most recent attack on Gaza, which resulted inat least 400 deaths, many of them women and children, may not be on quite the industrial scale that the Nazis eventually managed, but the brutality and sheer inhumanity is breathtaking, nonetheless.

Israel's claim of right and morality cannot be reconciled with its utter savagery.

To be fair,many Israeli citizensregard Israeli Prime MinisterBenjamin Netanyahuas a loathsome, corrupt autocrat who is using the conflict with Hamas as a way of preserving his grip on power and possibly staying out of gaol. Antisemitism plainly has nothing to do with such views and nor should it. Anyone who isnt troubled by children being blown to pieces, no matter where they come from or which religion their parents subscribe to, really ought to seek counselling.

And yet, remarkably enough, many people in the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) are apparently entirely comfortable about continuing to slaughter innocents. Indeed, some IDF personnel have fled abroad afterfilming themselvescommitting potential war crimes and posting the results on social media.

We know that the Nazis had little difficulty in recruiting people to commit murders on behalf of the state and that some sadists likeJosef Mengelerelished the opportunity to torture innocents in the course of medical experiments. We might have hoped that Jewish people above all might have learned just how dangerous a complete loss of humanity can be.

Clearly, this is not an exclusively Jewish problem. The Hamas terrorists who started the latest round of the Middle Easts seemingly never-ending conflicts were just as cold-blooded and inhuman. But what about the Russians who fire off guided missiles at targets in Ukraine, knowing that civilians will be the victims? What of the pilots of the American planes that recently bombedYemen, where civilians seem to have been the principal victims?

No doubt war is a brutal affair. By definition, states want unquestioning and immediate obedience from the members of their armed when conflict occurs. When the bullets are flying not many people are likely to be debating the rules of engagement or whether the particular conflict they are involved in can be characterised as a just war.

But this is overwhelmingly not the reality faced by most combatants from wealthy, industrialised nations. Death can be delivered at arms length, with comparatively little danger to the pilots who pulverise communities with no air defences, for example. Do they high-five each other on their safe return to base? Is this really what they signed up for?

A glimpse into the plight of Palestinian journalists raises questions about how war crimes against workers are going largely ignored even by unionists.

Much the same questions could be asked of the Australian armed forces, of course, as the recent inquiry into the conduct ofthe ADF in Afghanistanreminds us. Unlawful killings, as they are delicately described, are not something only other countries commit.

But no matter which countrys combatants commit such crimes, its important to ask how far up the chain of command responsibility should go. Netanyahu is a particularly glaring example of someone who is prepared to use extreme and inhumane violence against civilians to achieve his own selfish ends.

But what about former Prime MinisterJohn Howards enthusiastic participation in the Iraq war? Remarkably enough, only four Australians lost their lives in this conflict, the only purpose of which was to demonstrate, yet again, Australias slavish fealty to the United States, no matter how great a folly it might have been contemplating. Still, better than the650,000excess deaths suffered by the Iraqis.

It is difficult now to find anyone willing to claim that the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan or Vietnam were a good idea, but even Vietnam doesnt seem quite as cold-blooded, brutal and indefensible as the war in Gaza. If theres one thing we really ought to learn from history (but no doubt wont), its that we ought not to mindlessly do what were told even if were in uniform.

This is an especially good idea now that the most powerful man in the world has found his trigger finger. It would be another remarkable historical irony if it takes the American military, still themost respected institutionin the country, to save us from the looming Trumpian onslaught on democracy and individual freedom.

Some orders definitely shouldnt be obeyed.

Mark Beesonis an adjunct professor at the University of Technology Sydney and Griffith University. He was previously Professor of International Politics at the University of Western Australia.

Related Articles

• Campaign to expose Australian war crimes met with silence
• Australia too soft on war criminals
• Afghan war crime charges highlight chain of command deficiency
• The problem with war crimes law and what needs to be done
• Oscars controversy over allowing countries to hijack Holocaust history