Good morning,
This is a potpourri of musings about the situation in Gaza (and after this I hope to take a break from this topic for a while). There’s enough here to offend just about everyone…
HOW THE PARTIES APPROACH THE ISSUES
As much as the actual issues involved, one cannot underestimate the historic memories of the parties involved and how these “memories” act to interpret events and determine policy. Right now, for every event that happens, there are multiple ways to interpret that event.
There is a principle in competitive debate that each party attempt to establish the “grounds” upon which the debate is to unfold and be decided. By way of example, on the question of whether it is fair to sacrifice one life to save many, one team might argue the Kantian view of the absolute morality not to sacrifice a human life. Meanwhile, the other side might claim the grounds for the debate is the utilitarian view of the greatest good for the greatest number. A team will win or lose based upon the grounds the judge adopts and the judge’s determination of which team has made the more convincing claim.
The grounds upon which the debate regarding Israel and the Palestinians can be discussed is complicated. It depends upon one’s view of history, what event one sees as the defining moment (or moments) that initiate or exacerbate the conflict, and one’s politics. I would argue that, simplistically, there are five primary schools of thought in the Middle East (there are many more nuanced positions, no doubt):
1. Mainstream Israeli. “Just let us live in peace and have a Jewish democratic state. You have lots of nations and territory of your own.” The Holocaust, the long presence of Jews in Palestine, the wars, beginning with the War of Independence, and historic acts of terrorism shape their world view. Mainstream Israelis have been convinced for some time that they are at great risk, based upon consistent attacks from Arab nations throughout their history and subsequent terrorism. They seem satisfied to accept the occupation of the West Bank (whether actively or simply looking the other way).
2. Extremist Israeli. “This is our land. We make the rules. We won the wars. We just might want this to be a theocracy. You are free to leave. There is no partner with whom to negotiate.” They look to religion and terrorism by Palestinian actors as justification for their positions.
3. Hamas, Hizbollah, Iran. “Death to the Jews. You are a colonial power.” They are looking at the Nakba (Israel’s independence), when Palestinians were displaced from their homes, and the continuing Israeli control of the territories as their defining moments. They clearly and unequivocally maintain that Palestine must be free “from the desert to the sea.” This means no Jews, and the killing of Jews to get this result is acceptable. Last month’s murder, rape, and abduction fest makes clear that they mean what they say.
4. Those who celebrate the actions of those in #3. This is troubling, with the payment of support to families of terrorists and the recent celebrations of the killings of October 7th. I can’t hazard a guess as to the size of this group (but one’s opinion as to the size of this group often dictates one’s politics).
5. Mainstream Palestinians. Those Palestinians who want to live in peace, with opportunity and prosperity. Their views are motivated by the shock of Israeli independence, the Nakba and the continuing occupation. Some would like to return to their ancestral homes. Others would simply like to no longer be permanent refugees. These are the innocents that are vulnerable to air attacks and being placed in harm’s way by Hamas.
The problem has always been how one gets the Israelis in Group #1 together with the Palestinians in Group #5. I continue to believe (perhaps optimistically) that the groups of mainstream Israelis and Palestinians want what any of us want—to live in relative peace, raising our kids, and finding fulfillment in life. But things stand in the way, particularly interpretations of historic events and the intent of the other. My fear is each interprets the behaviors of the more extreme elements of the other group as representative of the majority of the other group.
The Israeli existential fear is that it is surrounded by nations that have warred with Israel and its very right to exist, while groups of terrorists commit unconscionable acts of terrorism. Most want peace but their willingness to act unilaterally is constrained by fears that any incursion or attack could be the last. The Palestinians in Group #5 have no credible leadership or organizing entity that can negotiate a peace. They have lived under unacceptable circumstances for decades. That said, does one negotiate with Fatah, even though they have been repudiated by Gaza? Does one negotiate with Hamas, notwithstanding the barbarism of its actions and diversion of foreign aid dollars to create an armed camp? The Palestinians in Group #3 currently control power, and their acts are celebrated and encouraged by those in Group #4. All this is while the Group #2 Israelis seem perfectly satisfied with the indefinite subjugation and humiliation of Palestinians, with some even pursuing outright violence against them.
COMPETING CURRENT NARRATIVES
The Israeli response to the brutal, celebratory murder of its citizens holds as its rationale that no nation can continue to exist alongside a group pledged to its destruction. That said, the question the extent of the response is open to debate on many fronts: humanitarian, effectiveness, end game, etc. Mere retribution is not a policy. There must be clearly articulated war aims that are achievable, can be achieved in a reasonable period of time, involve minimal civilian casualties, comply with the rules of war, and don’t worsen Israel’s international public relations campaign.
Hamas’s position ostensibly is about the occupation of the West Bank and actions on the Temple Mount. That said, these are exacerbators, but not necessarily proximate causes. It perceives Israel is a cancerous colonialist presence and must be eliminated at any cost. They maintain, against the historical record, that the Jewish people have no right to the land and should be resisted by any means necessary. This rejectionism is preached from the pulpit and taught in the schools. It offers no room for a world in which Israel exists and provides no framework for a peaceful and prosperous Palestine.
THE “SILENT MAJORITY”?
What the “typical” Palestinian believes is difficult to ascertain, but I think no one loves living in an authoritarian theocracy like Gaza and no one likes being subject to relentless assault from its neighbor. My guess is they want peace.
Not all Arabs are prepared to live in a perpetual state of war with Israel, yet they have a legitimate narrative that Israeli independence came at their expense. Meanwhile, not all Israelis are satisfied with the status quo (and certainly not with their government) but continue to feel a palpable security threat at all time. They, too, value peace more than the continuation of this generational conflict.
Neither “side” has clean hands. Israel’s very founding is partially based on the forced removal of some Arab communities. And It has failed since the failed Olmert peace proposal—irrespective of whether there is a "true partner" with whom to negotiate—to address the occupation of the West Bank and the treatment of the inhabitants thereof in any meaningful way. The Arabs have attacked Israel’s existence, through state actions and terrorism, for decades. Meanwhile, some 50% of all Jewish Israelis and many of the Jewish diaspora (myself included) can trace their ancestors to Arab lands from which they were forced to flee.
It increasingly is clear to me that the only way to any sort of peace is through unilateral Israeli action, supported by the U.S. and Europe, perhaps beginning with trust-building initiatives like the removal of some West Bank checkpoints, agreeing to fund some of Gaza’s rebuilding, and the limitation of settlement expansion. That would mature into something like establishing protectorates under international control of both Palestinian regions, which eventually can lead to nationhood.
WHAT ABOUT CLAIMS OF GENOCIDE?
Hamas is winning the PR battle and Israel has let it. What began as empathy for Israel quickly turned to approbation following its military response. Hamas had to have known of the response and continues to hide in peaceful institutions (hospitals, schools, and mosques), racking up headlines of Israeli mistreatment of the Palestinian civilian population.
There is a narrative that suggests that Israel is genocidal in its treatment of the Palestinian people. And while I count myself among those who see the daily humiliations of occupation as inhumane and unsustainable and the growth of Israeli settlements in the West Bank indefensible, one cannot make any legitimate claim of genocide. To conflate unjust treatment with a desire to exterminate that people is absurd.
And yet, the drumbeat on college campuses is loud and it is clear. They are marching and shouting about Israel’s “genocide” of the Palestinians. Clearly, they have not taken the time to read the dictionary definition, as “the killing of members of a nation or an ethnic group with the goal of destroying that nation or ethnic group.” It is not a policy endorsed by any mainstream Israeli leader and is not one pursued by that nation. Plenty can be said in condemnation of Israeli policy, but not this. All the while, these same protesters chant “from the desert to the sea, Palestine will be free,” which means that the entirety of Israel will be a Palestinian state, without Jews—a genocide. And while I see “die-ins” for the genocide of Palestinians, I don’t see a similar sensitivity to the actual genocidal position of Hamas, stated in Hamas’s charter, its past actions, and on October 7th.
Have a great day,
Glenn
I really like how you organised your thoughts and ideas... but do you really not think that yesterday’s attack on the refugee camp was genocide ? You asked if it’s ok ok to kill one to save many ... here they killed many innocent civilians to get one .. Israel, whom we always heard has the best intelligence and army in the world.. ( obviously not true anymore) but with every advanced technology that they have access to.. this was the only way to get the one Hamas operative ???? I would love to see the demise of Hamas .. they are brutal evil thugs... but not in this way
I have always viewed Israeli’s treatment of the Palestinians as horrible and inhumane and wonder how a persecuted people can now persecute.. ( I am a Jewish woman btw)
I am always amazed and dismayed how many of my liberal NY Jewish friends.. who fight for human rights for everyone else but turn their gaze away from the total inhumanity of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinian civilians..