Good morning,
As promised, more on the Israel-Gaza war… This is the longest Musing to date, but there are a lot of thoughts and a lot that should be said. Apologies for the length, repetitiveness, and stream of consciousness!
THE ASSERTION
The other day, in responding to one of the many email chains I have received about the Israel/Hamas war, I commented that Israel’s massive attack and the resulting destruction and death in Gaza struck me as indiscriminate violence. This brought about a response from a friend that ends with the question below:
THE CHALLENGE
“While there can be no debate about the incomprehensible nature of what happened on October 7, particularly the rape, sexual violence and torture of innocent women and children, I do ask what you would propose be Israel's response to people who are clear that they will not rest until we are all dead and use their own civilians as human shields? I struggle when people accuse Israel's response to the crimes of October 7 as 'indiscriminate violence in Gaza' without an additional statement of what would be the appropriate response to people who are clear that they will not rest until we are all murdered and the rules of war are just a nuisance that have no place in their world.”
THE RESPONSE TO THAT FRIEND
I think this is a fair question, worthy of a thoughtful response…
First, there of course should be no debate on the atrocities of what took place on October 7th. Anyone who protests Israel’s actions in Gaza without beginning with that acknowledgement and condemnation isn’t worth the attention.
As to the “what would you do” question, I believe there are several options, both for prosecuting the war and for dealing with the long term issues facing the Israel-Palestine conflict. While solutions appear to be mired in the mud, without meaningful movement or progress from either side, I would hope that perhaps the pain of the past few months and the abject failures of the governments of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank just might provide an opening for some creative solution.
So here is what I would do (if I—or anyone—could prevail upon the parties to act). In making suggestions about the conduct of the war, I should clarify that I do not claim to be a diplomat or military expert. I worry that there is no one with the ability or vision to make a number of these moves. And while it is true that the Palestinians do not currently have a legitimate entity that can negotiate on their behalf, I believe this is not an excuse for giving the Israeli government a “get out of jail free” card. Among the steps I propose are several that Israel could take unilaterally that can demonstrate a willingness to move forward and to attempt to humanize the Palestinians’ plight, reduce the civilian casualties, lower the temperature in the room, and alter the existing narrative.
I don’t have all the answers (indeed, I may have none of them), but I think Israel and diaspora Jews, in supporting Israel, must appreciate the grave dangers not only from Hamas but from Iran-backed actors and weakening American and worldwide support. The polls for continued American support amongst the next generation are not encouraging.
I accept that some may argue that Israeli action at this time may be seen as giving Hamas what it wants. Fair enough, but my suggestions presuppose no place for Hamas in the future trajectory for the region. In any case, I see this moment as an opportunity to shift around a game board (which currently isn’t shaping out so well for long term peace and stability). Here, then, are some steps, mixed together between war aims and resolving the greater conflict.
1. Bibi’s government must go. While Israel is not “responsible” for what happened on October 7th, the provocative nature of the government and the calls for expulsion of the Palestinians, visits to the Temple Mount and aggressive settlement program, offered Hamas alleged “pretext” for taking action. Again, I believe that pretext is but a red herring. But it’s hard to separate Bibi’s desire to stay out of prison and his lust for power from the continuing aggressive actions in Gaza. It also is hard to separate many racist and retributive sentiments articulated by the far right from legitimate policy aims. The war aims should be to get the hostages, pacify the area, establish an environment for the rebuilding of Gaza, and bring as many perpetrators to justice as realistic in a relative short time frame.
2. I would redefine the war mission to be to obtain release of hostages and rendering Hamas incapable of executing further attacks of this magnitude. The idea of totally obliterating Hamas carries with it the pretext to prolong the fighting, inflict civilian casualties and sustain greater Israeli casualties, because the aim is so maximal. It’s nearly impossible to accomplish the current vague war aims or to reconcile the conflicting statements about the day after. The far right statements about expelling Palestinians from Judea and Samaria don’t help in separating the notion of Greater Israel (free of Palestinians?) from the government’s real objectives. By the way, if historic biblical boundaries are the measure and justification for the West Bank, the biblical narrative does not include the Jewish people along the coastal plain (including Tel Aviv and its neighboring cities and towns).
3. I would offer to release detainees (not convicted felons) from Israeli prisons in return for the release of the hostages. I would offer safe passage out of Gaza for some number of Hamas members. I’d be very public about the offer to settle. In this way, Israel may shift international sentiment. Basically, “we heard the international community and are prepared to move on after our vanquishing of these guys. But it now is in the hands of Hamas to end the bloodshed.”
4. The IDF previously has prided itself on the noncombatant “friendly” nature of its prior actions. Here, however, by Israel’s own admission things are different. And the proof is in the numbers. Relatively few Hamas members have been killed or captured, whereas the civilian toll has been astonishing. I would announce publicly a new phase of more surgical strikes (concurrently with the above).
5. I would honor the safe zones that Israel has itself designated (and then apparently violated). I would increase the flow of basic supplies from designated NGOs and would accelerate the process of clearing of trucks entering Gaza.
6. I would state publicly that Israel has no designs on the long-term occupation or governance of Gaza. Israel should welcome a governing structure after the end of this conflict that is administered by Arab governments. I would propose it be a protectorate for a period ending upon the earlier of (a) ten years or (b) the establishment of a Palestinian state that includes the West Bank. Think of Austria post WWII. Increased sovereignty would be granted in increasing increments, beginning with municipal government, expanding to police powers, and eventually a national political infrastructure (as was the case with post-war Austria). At the end of the protectorate period, a plebiscite would be held to determine the future political direction of the territory. The Gazans could choose to be an independent state separate from the West Bank, join in a nation with the West Bank or even elect to join with Israel. Arab governments should be expected participate meaningfully, as I don’t see any short-term Palestinian-based option for governance.
7. Israel should announce that will contribute (along with Israel, the US and EU) money to a redevelopment bank to fund projects to rebuild, administered by an international agency to ensure the money goes to the right places and not toward rebuilding a military infrastructure.
8. I’d call the bluff on Hamas’s claim that this is based in part on the Temple Mount. It pretty clearly was not. That said, I would offer something like three days a year when Jews can pray on the Temple Mount and otherwise halt visits. They’re just provocations.
9. I’d state a halt building any further settlements or expansion of existing settlements that are not effectively suburbs of Jerusalem (which I believe are, in fact 3/4 of all settlers in these suburbs anyway). I’d say this will continue as meaningful negotiations remain ongoing.
10. I would consider instituting (or signal interest in) some expedited clearing of Palestinians through checkpoints (think of a trusted traveler program).
11. I would have the Israeli government unequivocally condemn acts of settler violence and institute criminal prosecutions against known perpetrators of such violence.
Those are a few things I think Israel should be doing, not because it is wrong about October 7 and not because the Palestinians have clean hands. They do not. But as painful as this is to acknowledge, neither are Israel’s.
Basically, without surrendering the goal of security, I would like Israel to act like more than simply a nation-state and more than a homeland for the Jews, but to act again as a light among the nations. There are things it can do to improve its image and to act in a more benevolent—more Jewish—manner.
The argument that the world is antisemitic or no matter what is done this is all about Jew hatred in my opinion conflates Israel-hatred, which clearly exists, with antisemitism (which also exists, albeit only overlapping within certain groups) is not compelling, nor helpful.
As a final note, Israel may well represent Biden’s downfall. Anything that results in strengthening the very dangerous Trump candidacy is bad. So an ancillary benefit of Israel taking a more benign/peaceful/accommodating posture will help that case.
HOW MUCH OF THE RESPONSE IS VENGEANCE?
Another rumination on the state of affairs comes from one of the brightest guys I know, a meditation on rage and vengeance:
“I’ve thought a lot about this, and I’ve tried to imagine how I would feel if I were a surviving husband, father, [or] grandfather…and my wife, daughter, [or] granddaughter… had been dealt with so savagely by an invading horde.
After the heartbreak and sadness, I think, would come the rage. And I don’t think I’d be very measured in what I would imagine as the necessary response to quell that rage. It would be to unleash savage vengeance.
And, because I’m incapable of wreaking that vengeance myself…I’d want those trained in such matters to do it for me, and I don’t think I’d care a lot about collateral damage.
Obviously, there are limits to the effectiveness—or appropriateness—of such a response, and we’re seeing it in the world’s view of Israel’s retaliatory actions. And I accept that there are other things at play in Israel that are shaping Israel’s response.
But I don’t think the desire for vengeance can be ignored.”
I have a terrible time with the notion of retributive justice. I understand the desire to “make people pay,” but I also think victims’ families in the broader context of criminal trials should not be a factor, nor should they be a factor in parole hearings. We should acknowledge the existence of rage and desire for vengeance emanating from those most closely affected by violence but, hard as that must be, society must separate such instincts from the greater good of society as a whole.
THE THOUGHT EXPERIMENT OF ANOTHER FRIEND
Another friend proposes a thought experiment, as follows:
“What are the conditions in situ that would make you comfortable having your daughter and son (and hopefully grandchildren) move to and live in Kibbutz Be’eri, Kfar Arza, Nachal Oz or Sderot. And what military action would you prescribe for Israel to take in order to give you that comfort level. As you think about the military action (and I acknowledge that I have no more military experience than you), take that experiment one more step – your daughter and son are in the IDF, stationed in Gaza, and cannot rely on air support as they make their way through the streets of Gaza attempting more ‘surgical’ or ‘counter terrorism’ tactics to give you that comfort level.”
I suppose I would begin by saying that society does not deal in absolutes. There always is a level of risk that we are willing to accept. Cars could be safer. Mountain trails could be safer. There is risk in living in an earthquake area or flood zone. Risk is part of life. That said, this correspondent is right to maintain that people within the borders of Israel should be kept safe from external attack—that is one of the functions of government. Whether that means complete elimination of the risk, versus controlling it to an ”acceptable” level (if there even is such a thing), I’ll leave for others to ponder.
As to the safety of troops, my return thought experiment is this: “The complete obliteration of Gaza and the killing of all residents would eliminate the risk of Hamas attack. How much LESS than that would you be willing to accept?” My gut is that moving slowly and targeting individual identified locations and leaders of Hamas is better than what appears to be less discriminating targets. I question, as to military and strategic experts, the need to make the job of the military safer, as the military goal of total victory provided the framework for a “scorched earth” strategy. Plus, I think the level of attacks experienced to date may well decrease the likelihood that hostages will be safely rescued.
THE REALITY OF THE SITUATION WITH HAMAS
Finally, the thoughts of one more friend:
“Here is what I know and we all know: we can debate what percentage of Gazans wanted to murder Israelis before and after the war started, particularly since none of us are clear who did the polling or the polling metrics, but what is not debatable is that Israelis who were the most left-wing in Israel living on kibbutzim and historically looked out for the Gazans who came over to work, were slaughtered because of those same Gazans who betrayed them. Here is also what I know: anyone who thinks there is not a large percentage of people living on this Earth who want us dead must also believe in unicorns and chocolate rivers. As a product of Holocaust survivors whose father had his first family, siblings and mother slaughtered by the Nazis, I do not believe in unicorns and chocolate rivers, nor do I believe for one second that Israel's neighbors wouldn't butcher the Israelis if Israel showed the slightest weakness. Frankly, the Gazans should have overthrown the Hamas dictatorship years ago and, if they were unfortunately powerless to do so, the Israelis now need to.
Last point: What Country would suffer daily rocket fire and do virtually nothing for years at a time? For reasons unclear to me, but maybe to others, Israel not only is somehow required to live by a standard no other Country in the world would tolerate, but actually sucked it up and just accepted the daily rocket fire until Hamas, with the support of the Gazans, committed atrocities the Nazis didn't even dream of.”
FINAL THOUGHTS ON THE ABOVE
The above is not an unreasonable recitation of the facts. But I also would note that:
1. I believe Hamas’s days of leadership are limited. Public opinion polls in Gaza prior to the October 7th attacks showed a 2:1 opposition to Hamas. It is tough for a people to rise up against an armed power that kills those with a mere thought of opposition or who might be seen as possibly “collaborating.” And while many Palestinian civilians no doubt supported, and may still support, Hamas, the majority just want to live in peace. When all this is over, I believe the people will question what Hamas hath wrought and allocate much blame to their criminal behavior.
2. The time may be ripe for some sort of meaningful movement on the peace front. There are those amongst the Palestinian thought leaders who reject both Hamas and the current leadership of the PA. Just as I believe the days of Netanyahu must end, I believe Abbas’s regime is in its waning days. Abbas is, after all, even older than Trump and Biden! His departure may well lead to new, more progressive, leadership. I commend to your reading Samer Sinijlawi, who sees a new generation ready to lead. Here is “Mahmood Abbas Must Go,” Sinijlawi’s New York Times piece: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/21/opinion/palestine-leadership-war-israel.html
3. It is tragic that the very people murdered and raped were among the most peace-loving Israelis. There is no way to rationalize what happened. No nation, as the above writer maintains, and asI have said, can leave its citizens vulnerable to attack, nor can it be expected not to respond to rescue hostages or pacify the area. But I believe that pacification, and the ability of Hamas to inflict further damage, particularly in light of what will be a heightened IDF presence near the Gaza border in the future, have been achieved (or are nearly achieved). Civilian casualties must end, access to humanitarian aid must be increased, and Gaza must be rebuilt. I am heartened by the subtle shift in the prosecution of the war, which hopefully will lead to: (a) a focus on the release of the hostages, (b) more surgical strikes on Hamas leadership, with less collateral damage, (c) redeployment of troops to areas of greater risk, such as in the North, while reservists are allowed to return to their jobs before further damage to the economy, and (d) efforts toward broader peace and compromise among the parties.
My final question, which turns around the above “what would you do” question is this: “Irrespective of the historic injustices meted out to the Jews in the Middle East, and notwithstanding the terrorist attacks and threats to Israel’s existence since independence, what can Israel expect from a people who are being denied self-determination and have been subject to the long-term daily indignities and denial of economic and personal benefit, resulting from the prolonged occupation of their land (I’m speaking of the West Bank and Gaza only)? How does one address the futility, the denial aspiration, and the absence of a clear path to a better life for their children?”
None of this justifies murder or rape. It does, however, suggest that the tinderbox continues to exist. It is not enough to say “we are in a hopeless cycle with our mortal enemies.” It is the responsibility of ALL parties to find a way out of the box that has bound them in perpetual struggle for centuries.
Sending love to all,
Glenn
Hi Glenn Some interesting and discussion that promotes additional thoughts on my part. I don't agree with you on everything and that is fine. You laid out your positions well. A statement where I do disagree is your statement "resulting from the prolonged occupation of their land (I’m speaking of the West Bank and Gaza only)" When talking about "occupation" I have separated the actions of Isreal regarding the West Bank and Gaza. Isreal did not and does not occupy Gaza. You know the history well. It gave up that land in 2005. The restrictions that Isreal and Egypt put on access to Gaza was purely defensive and only were put in place when Hamas determined the destruction of Isreal was more important than the welfare of the people they were supposed to govern. As we see now, the restrictions imposed by Isreal and Egypt were most unsuccessful but the suppression of the Gaza population by Hamas was very successful. I am still trying to find those bomb shelters for the ordinary Gazan. I won't get into who was the largest employer of Gazan's after Hamas. Thanks for the musings