I’m terribly distressed at the war in the Middle East. Already almost 1000 soldiers and civilians have died on both sides. And the likelihood is that the war will continue for some time, with far more death and destruction. As the war goes on, Israel’s military might means that death and destruction will fall heavily of Palestinian soldiers and civilians.
I’m also distressed at the one-side reaction of much of the press and also of so many of my Jewish friends, even those who have been critical of Israel in the past.
I want to start with three conclusions, which I will defend here and no doubt in further conversation.
- Hamas is fighting a legitimate war. It has a right to launch war on Israel in the current state of affairs. The idea that it was an “unprovoked” attack is absurd.
- Hamas is not always fighting legitimately. It is clearly targeting civilians not just soldiers.
- Those who are complaining that Hamas has been attacking civilians are far too often hypocritical. They have not condemned the attacks on civilians carried out by Israel or the US in the past.
Point 1: There are proximate and more distant causes of the war that justify Hamas’s initiation of warfare.
The first proximate cause is the actions and intentions of the current Israeli government which is dominated by parties that have made clear they intend to annex much of the West Bank, ending any opportunity for Palestinian self-rule and statehood.
The second proximate cause is the efforts of Israel, the United States, and Saudi Arabia to form an alliance that would give lip-service to the Palestinian right to self-determination. It’s important to note that Saudi Arabia appears ready to move in the direction that other Arab countries, starting with Egypt and Jordan have taken, of selling out the Palestinian cause to attain their own political interest. (The case of Egypt is, however, complicated. Even though the Palestinian autonomy for which Sadat bargained was limited, it might well have led to a Palestinian state had both Israel and the Palestinians agreed implement it. But Egypt and the United States both failed to push for that to happen.)
These two developments gave Hamas reason to act, with the hope that by doing so it would undermine the movement toward the Israel-US-Saudi Arabia entente and force the US to take action to push the Israeli government to hold back from annexing the West Bank. They also had reason to believe that this action might weaken the Netanyahu government. (I’ll return to the question of whether this strategy makes sense at a later time. But it should be clear that Hamas had very few options.)
The more distant cause is 56 years of increasingly burdensome Israel occupation of the West Bank and the continuing blockade of Gaza, in which Egypt as well as Israel is complicit. It is true that Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip under Prime Minister Sharon. Yet that withdrawal has been accompanied by a blockade that has led to horrible conditions for the 2 million Palestinians living in Gaza. And Hamas has, rightly, never been concerned just with Gaza but with the West Bank as well, where the occupation continues with increasing Israeli encroachment on Palestinian land and rights.
And yes, it is true that Palestinian military actions from the Gaza Strip and attacks from the West Bank have made Israel wary of eliminating the occupation and blockade. But those military actions have, again, been justified by the occupation and blockade itself and Israel’s continued actions, especially with regard to the building of settlements that make the prospect of a Palestinian state more and more impossible. As the far strong military power, Israel has had the obligation to move toward a peaceful settlement with the Palestinians and at the very least stop taking actions that make such a settlement virtually inconceivable. The excuse that Palestinians are reluctant to engage with the Israel may be a partial justification of Israel failure to reach out to the Palestinians. But given the history of continued Israeli expansion, it is not hard to understand why the Palestinians are wary. And as that history continues, they become more wary of dealing with Israel. Again, an Israel bent on peace would have been as aggressive in pursuing peace as it has been in pursuing security and expansion.
Point 2. While Palestinians have, especially in their ground actions been attack military units, much of their ground action has targeted civilians, and even worse, has led to the taking of civilian hostages. (Taking military POWs is a different matter.) And the missile strikes have been fairly indiscriminate as well.
The laws of warfare require that soldiers attack soldiers not civilians. So these attack on civilians are very disturbing.
However, the laws of warfare are limited in times of necessity.
(Here is a quick historical argument exemplifying the role of necessity in war: During World War II, US airplanes attacked Germans cities indiscriminately because given the Luftwaffe’s power, US and British bombers could only fly at night and given the limited technological capacity for targeting, they could only attack German munitions plants and military bases by aiming for well-lit cities. Later on, however, as Allied technical capacities and control of the air increased, those attacks on cities and their civilian populations continued. The attack on Dresden as well as the fire-bombing of Japanese cities were war crimes as was the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They were not necessary to end the wars in Europe or Asia on favorable terms to the Allies.)
Necessity applies in this situation as well. The Palestinians have limited military capacity relative to Israel. Hamas cannot target its missiles at military bases very well. And Iron Dome does protect Israel civilian populations which means that Hamas’ military strikes have done little damage to civilian population. Similarly it has limited military capacity on the ground.
This may justify some slippage from the laws of warfare. But Hamas does not appear to be interested in limiting its attack on civilians at all. Moreover it is now taking Israeli civilians, including children, hostage.
These attacks on civilians are horrific, morally wrong and should be condemned by all.
Point 3: Most of those who are condemning Hamas’ attacks on civilians do not have clean hands in the slightest. At times the Israeli Defense Forces have sought to limit civilian death and destruction. (The laws of war require that armies take positive steps to reduce civilian death and destruction not that they never kill civilians.) But there are far too many cases in which the IDF have failed to do what is required and also cases in which it aims at civilians.
Similarly the United States does not have clean hands. Aside from the morally questionable actions of World War II, our military has far too often attacked civilians in Vietnam and Iraq wars.
Too many of us call any Palestinian military action “terrorism” without recognizing that Israel and even more, US military forces have engaged in terrorism. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the shock and awe that began that second Iraq war are clear examples.
So I’m not willing to let those who excuse or ignore terrorism on “our” side get on their high horse and complain of Palestinian terrorism.
There are many more questions to be asked about the current war.
- Hamas’s initiation of war was legitimate, but was it smart? Can it achieve its purpose? Will it make the Israel public rethink its support of Netanyahu’s policies (or at least of the Netanyahu’s failure to see the war coming or prepare adequate defenses). Will the entry of centrist parties into the Israeli government have a good long term effect? Or will this war drive Israel’s voter even farther to the right?
- Israel has a right to fight back. But how should it do so in ways that recognize the cause of the war and that are most likely to restart peace?
- How can the US and Arab nations bring the fighting to an end as soon as possible.
And then there is the question of Hamas itself. I’ve said that Hamas’ initiation of war is legitimate. But it has been, in many ways, an awful movement and government, one created by the the most extreme versions of Islam that has rarely embraced the idea of a just settlement with Israel, and that has ruled over Palestinians in a undemocratic and tyrannical manner.
Most of us can comment on questions 1 to 3 and the Hamas question but we can do little to change outcomes any time soon.
One thing we can do, however, is try as hard as possible to react to the war in a way that is fair and even-handed and encourage our political leaders to do so.
I understand that many of us in America have family and friends in Israel and worry about their survival and that even those of us deeply critical of where Zionism has gone believe that a just settlement between Israel and Palestine requires some kind of Jewish homeland and we thus worry about the survival of Israel. (Although the survival of Israel is not threatened by Hamas’ war). And we also instinctively care about our fellow Jews who are threatened in the current war and especially those who have been taken hostage.
But if we care about peace and justice, we have to be honest about the causes and legitimacy of Hamas’ war.
Very few of us have met this standard so far.