Like many progressive Jews–although not enough of us–I’ve been torn and distressed about the current war.
On the one hand, I do think that Israel had a right to defend itself against a bloodthirsty vicious attack. And I thought that even though Israel’s government is horrible and has been for some time. It has been taking steps, especially with regard to settlements, that make many of us despair of the possibility of a peaceful settlement with the Palestinians. But countries run by horrible governments still have a right to exist, a right not to have its civilians attacked, and a right to defend itself against such attacks.
On the other hand, I had hoped that Israel would respond with a limited, targeted military action. But instead, while there have been instances of targeted attacks for which civilians received advanced warning, have seen a bombing campaign that seems almost indiscriminate and thus have been horribly destructive. We have seen a humanitarian crisis develop that Israel has a responsibility to address. And even the actions taken to protect civilians–such as asking them to leave the north of Gaza, look suspiciously like the prequel to Israel holding much of Gaza for an indefinite period.
But while I’ve made these criticism of Israel before, I’ve been reluctant to join the general outcry against Israel on the left because so much of it seems over the top, not to mention counter-productive.
For Israel has been subject to criticism that is one-sided and unfair as well.
There is, to begin with, all those who have questioned the legitimacy of Israel’s right to exist on the ground that it is a “settler-colonial” state. I’ve responded to that claim elsewhere, noting that this is both a misreading of the history of the Jewish connection to the land and another example of holding Israel and Jews to a different standard than other peoples are expected to meet.
Just to state the obvious: I don’t see American critics of Israel, who actually do live in a settler-colonial state, agitated about making reparations to Native Americans or Black people, let alone deciding to go back to where they came from. And when those Americans tell me that America’s settlement was ancient history while Israel’s creation was only 75 years ago I want to remind them of two things. First, that reparations are still possible here. And second, that if, just two generations ago, the ancestors of contemporary Americans were not anti-semites, a substantial number of Europeans killed in the Holocaust could have been rescued and brought to the US. And had the post-war Jewish refugees been allowed to come here, they would not have gone to Israel and the result would have been a very different situation in the Middle East.
And then there is the complaints about Israeli policy towards Gaza. Saying that Israel’s blockade of Hamas for a justification for October 7 is an appalling failure of historical understanding and basic morality.
Israel left Gaza in 2005, in part because the arguments of the Israeli left convinced Arik Sharon that it made sense to do so. Israelis hoping for peaceful settlement were desperately hoping for Gaza to flourish under Palestinian rule. The open borders with both Israel and Egypt which would have meant both that industry would flourish there and Gazans would be able to travel to Israel to work.
Israel at various time offered and encouraged others to offer aid to build an airport and new docks. The coastline of Gaza is beautiful and could have seen the development of resorts.
A successful, prosperous peaceful Gaza would have showed Palestinians and Israelis that, in the modern world, land is not necessary or sufficient for living well. Instead it is peace, good government and the ingenuity of a people that makes for a good life. It would have shown Israelis and Palestinians that they could live in peace. And this would have created the model for
A This It would h the most important thing
what is that Israelis that
What happened instead? Hamas used most of the aid it got from other countries to build tunnels and rockets. The blockade-which is carried out by Egypt as well as Israel-was a response to those attacks. And even it was relieved at various times as, on October 6, about 30,000 Gazans entered Israel to work and others received advanced medical care in Israeli hospitals.
Had Hamas chosen a different route and showed that it was ready for peace with Israel and G Gaza in ways that fostered economic growth so that Gazans themselves saw the benefits of peace, the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza would have been a template for Israeli withdrawal from most of the West
Bank.
Israel was not responsible for Hamas’ rejection of these steps towards peace. Hamas was.
So what should Israel have done in the face of this kind of response to its withdrawal?
It’s easy to criticize but very difficult to explain how Israel could have acted in Gaza in ways that lead to a better result.
(There are plenty of things Israel could have done better on the West Bank. But that is a different story.)
-and-
Just to be historically accurate, Netanyahu never financed Hamas. He allowed Qatar to do so. And he allowed the Palestinian
Authority to fund Hamas civil servants.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t blame Israel for a blockade that hurt Gazas economy and blame Israel for allowing funds that helped Gazans to flow into the country.
Netanyahu did this to keep the Palestinians divided. But he didn’t create that division. Hamas did when, after winning an election, it forced its opponents in Fatah to leave Gaza and killed many who remained as it killed many of its critics in Gaza in the last 17 years.
-achieve