Since last Saturday, media attention has focused on the Middle East as the Israel-Hamas conflict dominates headlines. TVE’s information services and programs, including The Hour of 1, have dedicated extensive coverage to the unfolding events. The morning show began its latest segment on Wednesday, October 19, highlighting a hospital massacre in Gaza that occurred the previous afternoon and the revelation that at least 500 people had died.
Throughout the program, Silvia Intxaurrondo and Marc Sala interviewed Juan Rodríguez Garat, a retired admiral of the Spanish Navy. Garat opened his remarks with a controversial assertion, arguing that what exists in Gaza is a war declared by Israel and that this declaration legitimizes Hamas’ October 7 attack. He added that many who accuse Israel of war crimes are themselves guilty of an oversight, stressing that the underlying agreements had not been fully read.
Garat contended that in wartime it is not true that civilians cannot be harmed while military actions are pursued, and, in his view, if any party uses civilians as human shields to protect military operations, those responsible for the use of civilians bear the blame for war crimes rather than those who bomb the areas. His stance prompted surprise from Intxaurrondo, who asked for clarification: whether Hamas’ attack could ever be justified. Garat affirmed that he understood the journalist’s position and then reflected on the principles of International Humanitarian Law, which identify forced displacement and targeting civilians as illegal. He remarked that civilians and hospitals are protected, but that protection can be forfeited when civilian sites are exploited for military purposes, a point echoed by Sala when he referenced damaged locations from prior days.
Silvia Intxaurrondo: “Where is the border?”
The admiral’s comments about proportionality in military action left Intxaurrondo seeking clearer limits. She pressed for a definition of proportionate intervention and a clearer border between legitimate military necessity and excessive force. Garat replied that both sides pursue different aims, avoiding a direct answer and prompting the host to reiterate with data on fatalities in Israeli strikes in Gaza.
The discussion intensified as the host queried: what constitutes proportionality when thousands have died in Israeli strikes, including hundreds of children? She asked whether this could ever be proportionate, underscoring the stark human toll.
Garat responded by outlining a framework where military advantage must outweigh civilian casualties. He suggested a hypothetical scenario: if a sniper within a hospital holds 1000 injured people, removing the sniper could be viewed as a legitimate military action, while ongoing operations with 1000 snipers might justify bombing even with casualties. He emphasized that the calculation hinges on strategic gain and proportional impact.
Intxaurrondo concluded the exchange by noting the existence of an international criminal court process where both sides can present evidence and arguments, signaling a pause in the discussion as they acknowledged the legal avenues available for resolving such disputes. The exchange illustrated how wartime reporting can grapple with difficult questions of legality, morality, and real-world consequences for civilians.