January 2024
I have feelings about this war—fear, horror, disappointment,
but it has been harder to know what to think.
I read the newspapers, trying to make up for a lack of expertise and
primary sources. I want to have an
opinion.
Israel
History argues for a Jewish state, some place where Jews are not a hated minority, someplace to run when we are not accepted, a place where some of us can choose to defend ourselves.
In the 20th century, defenselessness, our age-old
strategy in Europe, was no longer workable. The re-creation of Israel is more than a connection with our
ancient history; it is a statement that Jews, at least some of us, are no
longer willing to be passive. Was any
other solution possible? Did western
Europe or the United States save us?
Should we have chosen to disappear? Israel became a necessity, and so it must
survive.
But I am not Palestinian. It is not too difficult to understand that
after hundreds, thousands of years, the Palestinians were less than
enthusiastic about the return/immigration of large numbers of Jews, initially
from Europe, the re-creation of a Hebrew society and the establishment of a
new/revived, ethnic/religious state. Whatever,
the wisdom of their reaction, and many would argue that they have not been
terribly wise—the Palestinians have steadily lost territory in a series of
conflicts since 1948. With more and more
of them on less and less land, most Palestinians have been effectively pushed
aside.
Does this excuse terrorism or remove Israel’s right to
defend itself? It does not, and whether or not the reader
agrees with that, it won’t stop Israel from doing so. Israel exists, among other reasons, to defend its
citizens and the Jewish people. But in
order to avoid a repeat of endless wars, Israelis, and all Jews, need be guided
by an understanding that Israel’s foundations were not entirely pure and good.
Of course, there is plenty of blame to pass around.
There was/is . .
–the inevitability of Zionism (European nationalism and antisemitism).
–the unwillingness of the United States and other countries
to accept Jewish refugees prior to the Holocaust.
–the forced emigration of hundreds of thousands of Middle
Eastern Jews to Israel after its foundation (and yet their “return” is no
longer an issue)
–the unwillingness of the Arab states to effectively absorb
their displaced co-religionists (unlike Israel)
–their unwillingness (until recently) and that of many
Palestinians to accept a Jewish state in Israel, despite the arguable
justification and, more importantly, the practical necessity of doing so.
–the unwillingness of Israel to effectively foster a
separate Palestinian state, when it has had some ability to do so.
The circumstances of the Palestinians is a problem that
Israel should address, differently, since it is now the stronger party, since the
Palestinians themselves are unable or unwilling to find a solution, since the Arab states (and others) will not or
cannot do so, and because Israel does not have the power to avoid doing so.
The Palestinians were dispossessed through a combination of
Jewish persistence and their own bad choices;
but there is legitimacy to Palestinian claims. That does not mean that Israel should
dissolve itself—the United States and Canada are not being returned to the
American Indians, nor is any country in the Americas, nor will the Germans be
permitted to repopulate the cities of Eastern Europe, nor will Islam willingly
retreat to the Arabian peninsula and restore Christianity in Byzantium. Nor is the inability of Palestinians to
legitimize Israel the fundamental issue. Rather, if Israel wants peace, if Jews wish to
move beyond present circumstances, we might recognize that our history in
Israel has not always been glorious.
The alternative, the need to always be “right”, is to continually repeat history, a series of
wars, occupation and domination, even possibly genocide (ours or theirs). All are terrible. Jews
have a self-designated role in the world, that of an enlightened and direct
relationship with God. That view might encourage
us to think about solutions that reflect not only our will to survive, but also
whom we want to be.
The October 7 attack and the Israeli response
The October 7 attack was unspeakable; it was barbaric, and
since it was an organized massacre of Jews, it was a pogrom. It was conducted by people who consider
themselves to be aggrieved, to be victims.
How else can they have possibly justified and celebrated cruelty?
It was also a major security lapse by the Israeli state,
which controlled, or presumably controlled, the Gaza border.
The Israeli reaction has been fierce, which may be a deterrent,
but it has also been argued that it is disproportionate. The number of subsequent deaths, estimated by
Hamas at over 22,000, far exceeds the 1,200 Israelis murdered. The circumstances of the Gazan deaths may be
less barbaric, but only if one argues that death by bombing is less cruel than
death and murder close up, by shooting, by
violation and by mutilation. And this
does not take into account the destruction of buildings and infrastructure.
Israel’s government has decided to destroy Hamas and its military
capabilities, even at enormous
cost. But can Hamas itself, and the base
of its support and revival really be destroyed?
Morality aside, it might be feasible. Destruction and death, enough of it, can end
opposition. But this assumes a long war,
a lengthy occupation, re-education of the Palestinian population to a more
moderate position—and a complete rebuilding of Gaza, its buildings and its
economy. This might be something like
what the Allies did after beating and destroying Germany in World War II (as
Netanyahu has said). However, the
Palestinians continue to have varying support in the surrounding Arab states,
and there is substantial international sympathy for the justness of their
position. The Germans may also have had
legitimate grievances, but the Nazis sacrificed them to an extreme agenda and
were without support at the end of the Second World War.
Can Israel afford this strategy? It would be extremely expensive. Israel is not likely able or willing to pay
for it. US, European and Arab participation in a
rebuilding project may be inadequate.
Should the US pressure Israel to ease its destructive reaction? The US government has not applied maximum
pressure, at least in public, and in public, the Israeli prime minister has
indicated that he will not yield to outside pressure.
In these circumstances, there is uncertainty as to how much
leverage the United States has and how dependent Israel is on US financial and
arms support. The United States may not
have the power to insist; this war is viewed as existential in Israel. Despite a virulent anti-Israel reaction on the
left, it is not clear how much free-maneuver the US administration has, given
substantial support for Israel in the United States.
Even in these circumstances, the United States could have
taken, and can still take, a more hands off position, supportive, but perhaps
less willing to supply arms or additional funding for the very aggressive
approach that Israel has chosen. The
administration has argued that it has more influence by working with the Israeli
government within the context of overall support, and the Prime Minister’s
public statements are already countered by this article in Haaretz,
reporting that the US has calmed its demands for an early end to the war, in
exchange for more aid and more protection of civilians. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-12-25/ty-article/.premium/biden-lets-israel-proceed-as-long-more-humanitarian-aid-enters-gaza/0000018c-9d79-ddc3-a1bf-bf7fa1f90000
The Israeli government also had other choices. The October 7 attack was an intelligence and
military failure. The border was not
secured, so Israel’s first reaction might have been to secure it. Hamas is deeply imbedded in Gaza, so its military
structure and military support cannot be entirely destroyed, militarily, without
killing much of the population.
Killing all Hamas supporters is not practical or moral. Killing a substantial minority of them, even if unintentional
or regrettable, is killing nevertheless, and it does not seem to diminish civilian
support among Palestinians, indeed
support for Hamas has risen on the West Bank.
A friend in Vienna, who has some psychological training, attended a meeting with a professional psychologist who had visited Israel . . . his diagnosis was trauma. Indeed Israel has been traumatized, and its reaction traumatic.
A more limited reaction, a retaliation against the
perpetrators or the leaders, more targeted strikes, together with better border
defenses, might have been a short-term alternative to the goal of total
eradication. How to fight a more limited
war is not my expertise; Hamas continues to launch rockets into Israel. A military reaction was probably necessary, but
a more strategic, even-if-long-term campaign might have been a better step to a
longer term solution.
A longer term solution for Israel
As we have read, the Israeli government’s (or Netanyahu’s) previous strategy allowed for the funding of
Hamas (by Qatar) and was supposed to have been a material disincentive for this
attack. That failed, although there are
no easy solutions against an adversary that does not accept the basis for Israel’s existence.
Although it failed, the previous strategy did not require
the agreement of Palestinians. Negotiated
solutions require agreements, whereas
strategies and shorter-term solutions can be pursued by one party or the other unilaterally. Since a negotiated solution may be impossible
at this point, it may be preferable to seek progress from a more flexible
position. But what is progress? Certainly
for the Israelis, the first priority is to ensure against further attacks from
rockets and from invasions. That is no
easy taske, but next priority should be peace.
How can it best do this?
Hamas funding
A first might be to defang Hamas, even if it cannot be entirely
eliminated. And the least painful way to
disable it may be to go after its money.
This was addressed in an opinion
piece by Yair Lapid, the former Israeli prime minister in a December 10 Haaretz
article https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2023-12-10/ty-article-opinion/.premium/the-best-way-israel-can-destroy-hamas-is-by-attacking-their-financial-networks/0000018c-5001-df2f-adac-fe2d39920000 On December 16, there was also an article in
the New York Times on this issue.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/16/world/europe/israel-hamas-money-finance-turkey-intelligence-attacks.html Hamas has funding and Israel and its allies have
some power to reduce or close its funding sources, a critical next step. Knowing how to do this is going to be
critical after this war and in the rebuilding of Gaza. Mechanisms will be needed to ensure the money
goes to civilian rather than to military purposes, if necessary, re-routing or
closing the spigot when it does not. This
will be an ongoing and complex problem, as it has already been asserted that
aid to civilians in Gaza is being diverted to Hamas.
A broader strategy
The most interesting and pragmatic summary of a broader strategy that I have heard or read was in Ezra Klein’s (New York Times) December interview with Nimrod Novik, a former policy advisor to Shimon Peres (who preceded Netanyahu), formerly involved in a number of negotiations with the Palestinians and the Arab states, and a member of Commanders for Israel’s security, an organization of retired military and intelligence people who have been studying this issue.
The following summarizes and partially re-words what he said, and here is a link to the podcast. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/08/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-nimrod-novik.html
Right now, there is no prospect for a two state solution, according to Mr. Novik’s group, but it is still important long term. It has been clear for some time that the status quo is a mirage, given creeping annexation and the increasingly ineffective Palestinian Authority. The Authority has been delegitimized, weakened and choked financially, by the Israeli government, and the current Israeli government has also supported Hamas authority in Gaza, despite the periodic violence. This did not work, yet there are things that Israel can still do to prevent the disaster of a one-state solution.
Two states is still the preferable solution, because these
two people cannot live together in one state. The Palestinians can govern themselves—that
was shown in 2007 and 2008, when the PA was revived dramatically. Then Netanyahu was elected in 2009, and the
Palestinian Authority was choked and turned
into a subcontractor of the occupation.
In the meantime, the PA became increasingly undemocratic and
authoritarian.
Israel must nevertheless commit itself to an eventual
two-state solution says Novik. If there
is one state, Jews will be a minority or
a marginal majority in a state with equal rights, or Palestinians will have to
forego equal rights. Neither is
possible, so separation is the only choice.
Movement towards separation is possible, even without two states, by reversing
the slide towards one-state, that is the increased settlement, and by increasingly
the capacity of the Palestinian Authority, while maintaining overall security
by Israel until a deal is struck.
In order to revive the Palestinian Authority, Israel needs
to expand its geographic control, giving-up small chunks of the West Bank,
specifically areas that allow for contiguity between Palestinian areas, instead
of the current swiss-cheese, which leaves these areas surrounded by Israelis. There are also economic measures that would allow
the PA to deliver, instead of the present practice, that is withholding tax
revenue that is theirs and the main chunk of their budget. The PA cannot have
legitimacy for its population if it is not the vehicle leading towards
statehood, however long that might take.
The only solution that will allow Israel to leave the Gaza
strip is the PA, even in its current miserable state. It will take years to revitalize it, and it
cannot walk into Gaza as a proxy for Israel.
There needs to be a third party arrangement, for now. The Palestinian Authority may not now be able
to govern in Gaza, but it is needed to give legitimacy to whatever party governs
Gaza when Israel pulls out. The prime
minister has said no to PA governance in Gaza, but there is no one else. Under this government, Israel will be stuck
in Gaza, running everything.
The previous popularity of the Palestinian Authority
depended on the viability of the Oslo Process.
That failed. Now only Hamas is
seen as doing anything about the occupation.
Novik blames Israel for teaching the Palestinians the wrong
lessons. After every round of violence,
Hamas was rewarded with money and concessions, while the PA was choked, and the
consequences in Gaza are devastating. There
are others to criticize, but as an Israeli he channels his complaints to his
own government, which is supposed to service the security and well-being of the
country. The right wing members of the
current government are using the war to do terrible things on the West Bank and
to make sure that there is never a two-state solution. All he can try to do is advocate a different
course that will eventually lead to a different reality.
When Israel play its cards wrong, the consequences are
serious. There was an intelligence
failure, where Hamas plans were known but dismissed. If they had been taken seriously we might be
living in a different reality. The Prime
Minister refuses to take responsibility, and he has lost public support. He is accused of conducting the war with a
conflict of interest, given his legal troubles.
He needs to go, and yet he may have an incentive to keep the war going. We may pay a price for insisting that he is
not gone—hopefully other members of government and the military heads are
keeping tabs on any irregularity.
The government did not exist the morning after October
7. Not a single government agency was
able to perform its duties. It was
voluntary organizations that stepped in for evacuees, that organized search and
rescue missions, immediately after the attack, to find those in hiding. The voluntary energy was huge. When a prime minister appoints incompetent
ministers, and they their own hacks, the professionals are unable to
perform.
Either Israelis separate from the Palestinians, or the
Zionist dream is over. It is a question
of how to do it and whether the right leader can accomplish it. The Commanders
have been following public opinion, and Israelis don’t vote the Palestinian
issue—typically there are other voting issues. They vote Netanyahu, and he is an effective
campaigner, or they vote the economy.
But if you check on the Palestinian issue, at least a plurality, if not
a majority, would choose a pragmatic outcome.
If we have an Israeli government that goes for it, it will have majority
support. The problem is leadership.
Views evolve
As I read or listen, my own views evolve. Without
knowing whether Lapid or Novik are entirely correct, these are the opinions
that command my attention, because they focus on protecting Israel while being
practical and human and offering a vision for something better on all sides of
this conflict. The Israelis will almost
certainly win the current war in Gaza.
After the war there will hopefully be peace, and reconstruction, but a
long-lasting peace will be a peace that lifts oppression.
The reaction in the United States
The reaction to the Gaza war in the United States has become
a major issue, and it is important for American Jewry. The present administration, in Washington,
has given Israel substantive support, and there is considerable backing for
Israel in Congress and in the American public. Arguably this support has been too
unconditional. Without dictating to the
Israelis, it might have been wiser to
condition American support, earlier and more forcefully.
I have nevertheless been shocked by the intensity of the anti-Israeli
reaction. I should not have been—the narrative has shifted from defenseless
Israel, surrounded by hostile Arabs, to imperialistic/ occupier Israel,
dominating the Palestinians. The facts
on the ground have indeed changed; Israel has become stronger, and both
narratives have their truth. That is not
my fear. Instead is the virulence and
the focus on the Israel-Palestine issue, when there have been so many other misbehaviors,
including our own historic “occupation” in the United States, the death and
displacement in our Iraq and Afghan wars, and this is a short list. (A quick google search of the number of deaths
and refugees in Afghanistan and Iraq suggests that the Gaza War is small
potatoes, although very intense.)
The focus on this particular conflict has several
reasons.
–There is the virulence of the Israeli reaction, when there
are arguably other choices. (Of course
Hamas made and continues to make choices that promote its cause but are seemingly
indifferent to Palestinian lives.)
–In addition, and to their credit, the Palestinians have
been effective at advocating their cause.
They have had decades and the intelligence to do it, and they have gained
support.
–Israel and the West Bank are the Holy Land; this is a part
of the world that commands the attention of the West and of the Middle
East. Because of its history, it is not
ignored.
–Israel has come to be viewed as a western, colonialist
state. This is not entirely true, as
more or less half of Israelis come from the Middle East, but it has enough
truth to catch on.
And this is a time when western dominance and western colonial
history are justifiably criticized, forgetting perhaps that western colonialism
was a recent and effective form of human domination and cruelty, but by no
means the first and only one.
The danger of this focus is that it has leached into
antisemitism. While Gazan civilians are
considered to be innocents, even if sympathetic to Hamas, Israelis are not. Even American Jews are viewed as white and privileged,
which we are in the American context, and as a critical component of US
government support for Israel. This is probably
true, whatever our varied opinions.
Nevertheless, I do not accept anti-Semitic co-branding. It is much too dangerous and much too
familiar; the degradations of the 20th century, the reasons Israel
exists, are much too easily forgotten.
Fear
And thus my shocked reaction to recent congressional
hearings, where three university presidents gave qualified answers to Elise
Stefanik’s question, asking whether calls for the genocide of Jews violated
campus rules on bullying and harassment.
She cornered them, with the most extreme question possible.
Only Dr. Kornbluth of MIT parried the question, pointing out
that she had not heard calls for the genocide of Jews on her campus. She said she had heard chants which can be
anti-Semitic, depending on the context, when calling for the elimination of the
Jewish people. The presidents of Penn
and Harvard however handled the repeated questions much less effectively,
focusing on context and imminent threat, as if calling for genocide were not
itself an imminent threat.
I reacted emotionally to these answers, less so now with
time, more reading and listening to the hearings again. I was surprised at how poorly
these presidents defended themselves. I understood clearly, as though for the
first time, that calling for the genocide of Jews might be acceptable. For me this means that I no longer assume my
safety in the United States. The life I
have had and its privileges no longer protect me. As the wind blows, as time and politics
change, kind, well-intentioned, highly placed people, may not defend us. Should I be surprised? Isn’t this Jewish history? Didn’t I learn, years ago, that ethics yield
quickly to general opinion, or self-interest?
But I believed in American exceptionalism and never imagined this. . . not
in the world that I come from, not here.
We do have a constitutional tradition of free speech, and so
I remembered something years ago about
Nazis having been permitted to march in Skokie, Illinois. A 2020 article by David Goldberger is posted
on-line, “How I Came to Represent the
Free-Speech Rights of Nazis”, on the American Civil Liberties Union
website. It explains that the logic for
taking and winning the 1977 court cases was the ACLU’s commitment to the First
Amendment and to free speech, no matter how offensive the opinion. He wrote,
“Central
to the ACLU’s mission is the understanding that if the government can prevent
lawful speech because it is offensive and hateful, then it can prevent any
speech that it dislikes.” In
court against the Anti-Defamation League, the ACLU also argued that possible
emotional harm was not a valid reason to deny the Nazi demonstrators’
rights. (Of course universities are not
governments or public places; I have read in more than one source, that private
universities do have some right to limit speech on their campuses, although
they may choose not to do so.)
In a recent opinion, Bret Stephens, the New York Times columnist, accused
the intellectual left of a double standard, arguing that the presumed need to
defend free speech runs counter to the actual and ongoing censorship of
“unacceptable” viewpoints on many university campuses. In that context, the refusal to censor a call
for Jewish genocide is unacceptable and anti-Semitic. Free speech he wrote, requires accepting all
controversial views. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/08/opinion/antisemitism-college-free-speech.html
My view is that we should have leaders who believe in limits on behavior and moral guidance, whose notions of right and wrong are clear, not absolute but to be absolutely defended. We already killed the indigenous people in this country, and pushed them into reservations, much more effectively than the Israelis, and not too terribly long ago. We benefitted, all of us, including those of us who immigrated afterwards, and we have effectively buried that sin. It needs to be recalled.
Calling for genocide again is extremely dangerous. We can allow for criticism without permitting calls for genocide. Stefanik was right; in this there is no context or relativism. The sin of genocide is absolute.
Therefore, within our free speech tradition, not every
speech need be permitted, at least not with the public platform of a town park
or a university campus. Nor is the
concept of “imminent lawless action” satisfactory. It curtails speech only when the incitement
is imminent and likely (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action),
yet even an eventual threat can be very dangerous.
Incendiary speech may not be threatening, when it is
unlikely or occasional, and when the speakers are isolated individuals or small
fringe groups, such as the Nazis were in the 1970’s. But extreme views, and advocating violence,
become much more serious when they become a movement and appeal to large
numbers of people and their leaders. Do
we really want to live in a society where criticism of Israel leaches into
overt anti-Semitism or other forms of prejudice or racism on campuses and in
our cities? Should we be protecting speech
that advocates violence or extermination, of migrants or of white men or
“occupiers”? We have some rethinking to
do if we are to survive as both a democracy and as a liberal society. A liberal society is democracy with some limits.
No society works on absolute
principles.
The War in Gaza
January 2024
I have feelings about this war—fear, horror, disappointment, but it has been harder to know what to think. I read the newspapers, trying to make up for a lack of expertise and primary sources. I want to have an opinion.
Israel
History argues for a Jewish state, some place where Jews are not a hated minority, someplace to run when we are not accepted, a place where some of us can choose to defend ourselves.
In the 20th century, defenselessness, our age-old strategy in Europe, was no longer workable. The re-creation of Israel is more than a connection with our ancient history; it is a statement that Jews, at least some of us, are no longer willing to be passive. Was any other solution possible? Did western Europe or the United States save us? Should we have chosen to disappear? Israel became a necessity, and so it must survive.
But I am not Palestinian. It is not too difficult to understand that after hundreds, thousands of years, the Palestinians were less than enthusiastic about the return/immigration of large numbers of Jews, initially from Europe, the re-creation of a Hebrew society and the establishment of a new/revived, ethnic/religious state. Whatever, the wisdom of their reaction, and many would argue that they have not been terribly wise—the Palestinians have steadily lost territory in a series of conflicts since 1948. With more and more of them on less and less land, most Palestinians have been effectively pushed aside.
Does this excuse terrorism or remove Israel’s right to defend itself? It does not, and whether or not the reader agrees with that, it won’t stop Israel from doing so. Israel exists, among other reasons, to defend its citizens and the Jewish people. But in order to avoid a repeat of endless wars, Israelis, and all Jews, need be guided by an understanding that Israel’s foundations were not entirely pure and good.
Of course, there is plenty of blame to pass around.
There was/is . .
–the inevitability of Zionism (European nationalism and antisemitism).
–the unwillingness of the United States and other countries to accept Jewish refugees prior to the Holocaust.
–the forced emigration of hundreds of thousands of Middle Eastern Jews to Israel after its foundation (and yet their “return” is no longer an issue)
–the unwillingness of the Arab states to effectively absorb their displaced co-religionists (unlike Israel)
–their unwillingness (until recently) and that of many Palestinians to accept a Jewish state in Israel, despite the arguable justification and, more importantly, the practical necessity of doing so.
–the unwillingness of Israel to effectively foster a separate Palestinian state, when it has had some ability to do so.
The circumstances of the Palestinians is a problem that Israel should address, differently, since it is now the stronger party, since the Palestinians themselves are unable or unwilling to find a solution, since the Arab states (and others) will not or cannot do so, and because Israel does not have the power to avoid doing so.
The Palestinians were dispossessed through a combination of Jewish persistence and their own bad choices; but there is legitimacy to Palestinian claims. That does not mean that Israel should dissolve itself—the United States and Canada are not being returned to the American Indians, nor is any country in the Americas, nor will the Germans be permitted to repopulate the cities of Eastern Europe, nor will Islam willingly retreat to the Arabian peninsula and restore Christianity in Byzantium. Nor is the inability of Palestinians to legitimize Israel the fundamental issue. Rather, if Israel wants peace, if Jews wish to move beyond present circumstances, we might recognize that our history in Israel has not always been glorious.
The alternative, the need to always be “right”, is to continually repeat history, a series of wars, occupation and domination, even possibly genocide (ours or theirs). All are terrible. Jews have a self-designated role in the world, that of an enlightened and direct relationship with God. That view might encourage us to think about solutions that reflect not only our will to survive, but also whom we want to be.
The October 7 attack and the Israeli response
The October 7 attack was unspeakable; it was barbaric, and since it was an organized massacre of Jews, it was a pogrom. It was conducted by people who consider themselves to be aggrieved, to be victims. How else can they have possibly justified and celebrated cruelty?
It was also a major security lapse by the Israeli state, which controlled, or presumably controlled, the Gaza border.
The Israeli reaction has been fierce, which may be a deterrent, but it has also been argued that it is disproportionate. The number of subsequent deaths, estimated by Hamas at over 22,000, far exceeds the 1,200 Israelis murdered. The circumstances of the Gazan deaths may be less barbaric, but only if one argues that death by bombing is less cruel than death and murder close up, by shooting, by violation and by mutilation. And this does not take into account the destruction of buildings and infrastructure.
Israel’s government has decided to destroy Hamas and its military capabilities, even at enormous cost. But can Hamas itself, and the base of its support and revival really be destroyed? Morality aside, it might be feasible. Destruction and death, enough of it, can end opposition. But this assumes a long war, a lengthy occupation, re-education of the Palestinian population to a more moderate position—and a complete rebuilding of Gaza, its buildings and its economy. This might be something like what the Allies did after beating and destroying Germany in World War II (as Netanyahu has said). However, the Palestinians continue to have varying support in the surrounding Arab states, and there is substantial international sympathy for the justness of their position. The Germans may also have had legitimate grievances, but the Nazis sacrificed them to an extreme agenda and were without support at the end of the Second World War.
Can Israel afford this strategy? It would be extremely expensive. Israel is not likely able or willing to pay for it. US, European and Arab participation in a rebuilding project may be inadequate. Should the US pressure Israel to ease its destructive reaction? The US government has not applied maximum pressure, at least in public, and in public, the Israeli prime minister has indicated that he will not yield to outside pressure.
In these circumstances, there is uncertainty as to how much leverage the United States has and how dependent Israel is on US financial and arms support. The United States may not have the power to insist; this war is viewed as existential in Israel. Despite a virulent anti-Israel reaction on the left, it is not clear how much free-maneuver the US administration has, given substantial support for Israel in the United States.
Even in these circumstances, the United States could have taken, and can still take, a more hands off position, supportive, but perhaps less willing to supply arms or additional funding for the very aggressive approach that Israel has chosen. The administration has argued that it has more influence by working with the Israeli government within the context of overall support, and the Prime Minister’s public statements are already countered by this article in Haaretz, reporting that the US has calmed its demands for an early end to the war, in exchange for more aid and more protection of civilians. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-12-25/ty-article/.premium/biden-lets-israel-proceed-as-long-more-humanitarian-aid-enters-gaza/0000018c-9d79-ddc3-a1bf-bf7fa1f90000
The Israeli government also had other choices. The October 7 attack was an intelligence and military failure. The border was not secured, so Israel’s first reaction might have been to secure it. Hamas is deeply imbedded in Gaza, so its military structure and military support cannot be entirely destroyed, militarily, without killing much of the population. Killing all Hamas supporters is not practical or moral. Killing a substantial minority of them, even if unintentional or regrettable, is killing nevertheless, and it does not seem to diminish civilian support among Palestinians, indeed support for Hamas has risen on the West Bank.
A friend in Vienna, who has some psychological training, attended a meeting with a professional psychologist who had visited Israel . . . his diagnosis was trauma. Indeed Israel has been traumatized, and its reaction traumatic.
A more limited reaction, a retaliation against the perpetrators or the leaders, more targeted strikes, together with better border defenses, might have been a short-term alternative to the goal of total eradication. How to fight a more limited war is not my expertise; Hamas continues to launch rockets into Israel. A military reaction was probably necessary, but a more strategic, even-if-long-term campaign might have been a better step to a longer term solution.
A longer term solution for Israel
As we have read, the Israeli government’s (or Netanyahu’s) previous strategy allowed for the funding of Hamas (by Qatar) and was supposed to have been a material disincentive for this attack. That failed, although there are no easy solutions against an adversary that does not accept the basis for Israel’s existence.
Although it failed, the previous strategy did not require the agreement of Palestinians. Negotiated solutions require agreements, whereas strategies and shorter-term solutions can be pursued by one party or the other unilaterally. Since a negotiated solution may be impossible at this point, it may be preferable to seek progress from a more flexible position. But what is progress? Certainly for the Israelis, the first priority is to ensure against further attacks from rockets and from invasions. That is no easy taske, but next priority should be peace. How can it best do this?
Hamas funding
A first might be to defang Hamas, even if it cannot be entirely eliminated. And the least painful way to disable it may be to go after its money. This was addressed in an opinion piece by Yair Lapid, the former Israeli prime minister in a December 10 Haaretz article https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2023-12-10/ty-article-opinion/.premium/the-best-way-israel-can-destroy-hamas-is-by-attacking-their-financial-networks/0000018c-5001-df2f-adac-fe2d39920000 On December 16, there was also an article in the New York Times on this issue.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/16/world/europe/israel-hamas-money-finance-turkey-intelligence-attacks.html Hamas has funding and Israel and its allies have some power to reduce or close its funding sources, a critical next step. Knowing how to do this is going to be critical after this war and in the rebuilding of Gaza. Mechanisms will be needed to ensure the money goes to civilian rather than to military purposes, if necessary, re-routing or closing the spigot when it does not. This will be an ongoing and complex problem, as it has already been asserted that aid to civilians in Gaza is being diverted to Hamas.
A broader strategy
The most interesting and pragmatic summary of a broader strategy that I have heard or read was in Ezra Klein’s (New York Times) December interview with Nimrod Novik, a former policy advisor to Shimon Peres (who preceded Netanyahu), formerly involved in a number of negotiations with the Palestinians and the Arab states, and a member of Commanders for Israel’s security, an organization of retired military and intelligence people who have been studying this issue.
The following summarizes and partially re-words what he said, and here is a link to the podcast. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/08/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-nimrod-novik.html
Right now, there is no prospect for a two state solution, according to Mr. Novik’s group, but it is still important long term. It has been clear for some time that the status quo is a mirage, given creeping annexation and the increasingly ineffective Palestinian Authority. The Authority has been delegitimized, weakened and choked financially, by the Israeli government, and the current Israeli government has also supported Hamas authority in Gaza, despite the periodic violence. This did not work, yet there are things that Israel can still do to prevent the disaster of a one-state solution.
Two states is still the preferable solution, because these two people cannot live together in one state. The Palestinians can govern themselves—that was shown in 2007 and 2008, when the PA was revived dramatically. Then Netanyahu was elected in 2009, and the Palestinian Authority was choked and turned into a subcontractor of the occupation. In the meantime, the PA became increasingly undemocratic and authoritarian.
Israel must nevertheless commit itself to an eventual two-state solution says Novik. If there is one state, Jews will be a minority or a marginal majority in a state with equal rights, or Palestinians will have to forego equal rights. Neither is possible, so separation is the only choice. Movement towards separation is possible, even without two states, by reversing the slide towards one-state, that is the increased settlement, and by increasingly the capacity of the Palestinian Authority, while maintaining overall security by Israel until a deal is struck.
In order to revive the Palestinian Authority, Israel needs to expand its geographic control, giving-up small chunks of the West Bank, specifically areas that allow for contiguity between Palestinian areas, instead of the current swiss-cheese, which leaves these areas surrounded by Israelis. There are also economic measures that would allow the PA to deliver, instead of the present practice, that is withholding tax revenue that is theirs and the main chunk of their budget. The PA cannot have legitimacy for its population if it is not the vehicle leading towards statehood, however long that might take.
The only solution that will allow Israel to leave the Gaza strip is the PA, even in its current miserable state. It will take years to revitalize it, and it cannot walk into Gaza as a proxy for Israel. There needs to be a third party arrangement, for now. The Palestinian Authority may not now be able to govern in Gaza, but it is needed to give legitimacy to whatever party governs Gaza when Israel pulls out. The prime minister has said no to PA governance in Gaza, but there is no one else. Under this government, Israel will be stuck in Gaza, running everything.
The previous popularity of the Palestinian Authority depended on the viability of the Oslo Process. That failed. Now only Hamas is seen as doing anything about the occupation. Novik blames Israel for teaching the Palestinians the wrong lessons. After every round of violence, Hamas was rewarded with money and concessions, while the PA was choked, and the consequences in Gaza are devastating. There are others to criticize, but as an Israeli he channels his complaints to his own government, which is supposed to service the security and well-being of the country. The right wing members of the current government are using the war to do terrible things on the West Bank and to make sure that there is never a two-state solution. All he can try to do is advocate a different course that will eventually lead to a different reality.
When Israel play its cards wrong, the consequences are serious. There was an intelligence failure, where Hamas plans were known but dismissed. If they had been taken seriously we might be living in a different reality. The Prime Minister refuses to take responsibility, and he has lost public support. He is accused of conducting the war with a conflict of interest, given his legal troubles. He needs to go, and yet he may have an incentive to keep the war going. We may pay a price for insisting that he is not gone—hopefully other members of government and the military heads are keeping tabs on any irregularity.
The government did not exist the morning after October 7. Not a single government agency was able to perform its duties. It was voluntary organizations that stepped in for evacuees, that organized search and rescue missions, immediately after the attack, to find those in hiding. The voluntary energy was huge. When a prime minister appoints incompetent ministers, and they their own hacks, the professionals are unable to perform.
Either Israelis separate from the Palestinians, or the Zionist dream is over. It is a question of how to do it and whether the right leader can accomplish it. The Commanders have been following public opinion, and Israelis don’t vote the Palestinian issue—typically there are other voting issues. They vote Netanyahu, and he is an effective campaigner, or they vote the economy. But if you check on the Palestinian issue, at least a plurality, if not a majority, would choose a pragmatic outcome. If we have an Israeli government that goes for it, it will have majority support. The problem is leadership.
Views evolve
As I read or listen, my own views evolve. Without knowing whether Lapid or Novik are entirely correct, these are the opinions that command my attention, because they focus on protecting Israel while being practical and human and offering a vision for something better on all sides of this conflict. The Israelis will almost certainly win the current war in Gaza. After the war there will hopefully be peace, and reconstruction, but a long-lasting peace will be a peace that lifts oppression.
The reaction in the United States
The reaction to the Gaza war in the United States has become a major issue, and it is important for American Jewry. The present administration, in Washington, has given Israel substantive support, and there is considerable backing for Israel in Congress and in the American public. Arguably this support has been too unconditional. Without dictating to the Israelis, it might have been wiser to condition American support, earlier and more forcefully.
I have nevertheless been shocked by the intensity of the anti-Israeli reaction. I should not have been—the narrative has shifted from defenseless Israel, surrounded by hostile Arabs, to imperialistic/ occupier Israel, dominating the Palestinians. The facts on the ground have indeed changed; Israel has become stronger, and both narratives have their truth. That is not my fear. Instead is the virulence and the focus on the Israel-Palestine issue, when there have been so many other misbehaviors, including our own historic “occupation” in the United States, the death and displacement in our Iraq and Afghan wars, and this is a short list. (A quick google search of the number of deaths and refugees in Afghanistan and Iraq suggests that the Gaza War is small potatoes, although very intense.)
The focus on this particular conflict has several reasons.
–There is the virulence of the Israeli reaction, when there are arguably other choices. (Of course Hamas made and continues to make choices that promote its cause but are seemingly indifferent to Palestinian lives.)
–In addition, and to their credit, the Palestinians have been effective at advocating their cause. They have had decades and the intelligence to do it, and they have gained support.
–Israel and the West Bank are the Holy Land; this is a part of the world that commands the attention of the West and of the Middle East. Because of its history, it is not ignored.
–Israel has come to be viewed as a western, colonialist state. This is not entirely true, as more or less half of Israelis come from the Middle East, but it has enough truth to catch on.
And this is a time when western dominance and western colonial history are justifiably criticized, forgetting perhaps that western colonialism was a recent and effective form of human domination and cruelty, but by no means the first and only one.
The danger of this focus is that it has leached into antisemitism. While Gazan civilians are considered to be innocents, even if sympathetic to Hamas, Israelis are not. Even American Jews are viewed as white and privileged, which we are in the American context, and as a critical component of US government support for Israel. This is probably true, whatever our varied opinions. Nevertheless, I do not accept anti-Semitic co-branding. It is much too dangerous and much too familiar; the degradations of the 20th century, the reasons Israel exists, are much too easily forgotten.
Fear
And thus my shocked reaction to recent congressional hearings, where three university presidents gave qualified answers to Elise Stefanik’s question, asking whether calls for the genocide of Jews violated campus rules on bullying and harassment. She cornered them, with the most extreme question possible.
Only Dr. Kornbluth of MIT parried the question, pointing out that she had not heard calls for the genocide of Jews on her campus. She said she had heard chants which can be anti-Semitic, depending on the context, when calling for the elimination of the Jewish people. The presidents of Penn and Harvard however handled the repeated questions much less effectively, focusing on context and imminent threat, as if calling for genocide were not itself an imminent threat.
I reacted emotionally to these answers, less so now with time, more reading and listening to the hearings again. I was surprised at how poorly these presidents defended themselves. I understood clearly, as though for the first time, that calling for the genocide of Jews might be acceptable. For me this means that I no longer assume my safety in the United States. The life I have had and its privileges no longer protect me. As the wind blows, as time and politics change, kind, well-intentioned, highly placed people, may not defend us. Should I be surprised? Isn’t this Jewish history? Didn’t I learn, years ago, that ethics yield quickly to general opinion, or self-interest? But I believed in American exceptionalism and never imagined this. . . not in the world that I come from, not here.
We do have a constitutional tradition of free speech, and so I remembered something years ago about Nazis having been permitted to march in Skokie, Illinois. A 2020 article by David Goldberger is posted on-line, “How I Came to Represent the Free-Speech Rights of Nazis”, on the American Civil Liberties Union website. It explains that the logic for taking and winning the 1977 court cases was the ACLU’s commitment to the First Amendment and to free speech, no matter how offensive the opinion. He wrote, “Central to the ACLU’s mission is the understanding that if the government can prevent lawful speech because it is offensive and hateful, then it can prevent any speech that it dislikes.” In court against the Anti-Defamation League, the ACLU also argued that possible emotional harm was not a valid reason to deny the Nazi demonstrators’ rights. (Of course universities are not governments or public places; I have read in more than one source, that private universities do have some right to limit speech on their campuses, although they may choose not to do so.)
In a recent opinion, Bret Stephens, the New York Times columnist, accused the intellectual left of a double standard, arguing that the presumed need to defend free speech runs counter to the actual and ongoing censorship of “unacceptable” viewpoints on many university campuses. In that context, the refusal to censor a call for Jewish genocide is unacceptable and anti-Semitic. Free speech he wrote, requires accepting all controversial views. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/08/opinion/antisemitism-college-free-speech.html
My view is that we should have leaders who believe in limits on behavior and moral guidance, whose notions of right and wrong are clear, not absolute but to be absolutely defended. We already killed the indigenous people in this country, and pushed them into reservations, much more effectively than the Israelis, and not too terribly long ago. We benefitted, all of us, including those of us who immigrated afterwards, and we have effectively buried that sin. It needs to be recalled.
Calling for genocide again is extremely dangerous. We can allow for criticism without permitting calls for genocide. Stefanik was right; in this there is no context or relativism. The sin of genocide is absolute.
Therefore, within our free speech tradition, not every speech need be permitted, at least not with the public platform of a town park or a university campus. Nor is the concept of “imminent lawless action” satisfactory. It curtails speech only when the incitement is imminent and likely (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action), yet even an eventual threat can be very dangerous.
Incendiary speech may not be threatening, when it is unlikely or occasional, and when the speakers are isolated individuals or small fringe groups, such as the Nazis were in the 1970’s. But extreme views, and advocating violence, become much more serious when they become a movement and appeal to large numbers of people and their leaders. Do we really want to live in a society where criticism of Israel leaches into overt anti-Semitism or other forms of prejudice or racism on campuses and in our cities? Should we be protecting speech that advocates violence or extermination, of migrants or of white men or “occupiers”? We have some rethinking to do if we are to survive as both a democracy and as a liberal society. A liberal society is democracy with some limits. No society works on absolute principles.