 |
| Secretary of State Marco Rubio at the Kotel yesterday (Jerusalem Post) |
Our current war is just, fought in defense of a higher moral ideal. The IDF holds itself to a strict code of ethics, and the data show a remarkably low ratio of civilian to soldier casualties. Still, the conflict has raised painful and complicated moral questions. There is ongoing debate about how - or even if - these dilemmas should guide policy.
We find ourselves in a profoundly tangled moral maze, one that no single person or policy can fully chart. It is difficult to know what the “right” path might be - or even whether this moment of survival allows space for moral values to guide our choices.
It is with these comments in mind that I am perplexed by an
editorial in the Jerusalem Post. There is a lot to digest in this
editorial, some of which I agree with. Here is how they opened their editorial (which
synopsizes it):
The arrival of US Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Israel on Sunday is yet another opportunity that cannot be missed by Israeli leadership to bring the Israel-Hamas War to a satisfactory close, as time continues to run out – both for the hostages and for Israel’s good name, reputation, and international credit.
All of those things are worthy goals. Only a fool would
disagree with them. Here’s the problem though.
I understand the sentiment. But I would hardly characterize this visit as the harsh criticism the mainstream media is saying it is. Every quote I
heard from Secretary Rubio has been supportive. Even though the president was unhappy
about the attack on Qatar, he made very clear that Hamas has to be defeated,
and all the hostages must be released. Which is exactly the same goal repeatedly articulated by Israel.
Much of the mainstream media is characterizing the
president’s response as a condemnation. It isn’t. The only people condemning
Israel are the usual gang of suspects. Which doesn’t surprise me.
With respect to ending the war, who wouldn’t want it to end?
But without defeating Hamas, I’m not sure how ending it will solve anything. If
Hamas is allowed to stay in power in Gaza, I fear they will very quickly
reconstitute themselves by recruiting young Palestinians more eager than ever to
join them.
The only way this war ends is if Hamas leaves Gaza and
abdicates its governance over it. Unless that happens, the entire two years of
war will have been in vain in my humble opinion. It doesn’t matter that Hamas
is weak now. It won’t take long until they are back to their full terrorist
capabilities. And whatever tunnels were destroyed by Israel will quickly be rebuilt.
I do agree with the Post on one point: Israel’s
reputation has suffered the worst damage in its entire history. Support among
the American people has plummeted to record lows. The highly influential
entertainment industry including many A-list actors have almost universally
condemned Israel and boycotting them culturally.
But that’s only because the truth about the war is ignored
in favor of what the Hamas-run Health Ministry and their willing
co-conspirators in the UN and related ‘humanitarian’ agencies are feeding them –
LIES which the media then regurgitates
to the public. If that were all the news I was getting, I would boycott Israel
too. But I tend to believe Israel’s version of the truth over that of the
Hamas-run Health Ministry and company.
Still, the truth doesn’t change the reality of the
consequences of those lies being passed off and widely accepted as truth. And that is why Israel’s
reputation is at such a low point.
The question is: what is Israel to do about this? If they
end the war now without completely defeating Hamas, it will be like jumping
from the frying pan into the fire.
Bottom line: I hurts that Israel’s reputation has suffered such a devastating blow. And I do have a lot of questions. But I don’t have any answers.
Justified or not Israel's loss of support in the West has been and continues to be a major strategic loss. Rubio so far at least publicly has been pro-Israel in Israel much more than Trump-but watch out how he talks when he gets to Doha.No matter what the loss in support by the west the sole source of arms for Israel and diplomatic support is crucial. Ignoring the predictable loss of support when Israel does a campaign that impacts civilians is first rate malpractice-even Ronald Reagan hero to RWO embargoed weapons to Israel after killing by mistake far fewer civilians than have been killed in Gaza
ReplyDelete>> Even though the president was unhappy about the attack on Qatar, he made very clear that Hamas has to be defeated, and all the hostages must be released. Which is exactly the same goal repeatedly articulated by Israel.
ReplyDeleteThis is also now the position of the Arab League. In fact, there is very little daylight between the position of the Arab League and that of the state of Israel. The only difference, possibly, is that the Arab League says that the Palestinian Authority is the legitimate government of the Gaza Strip while Israel wants to exclude that also - but they don't want to put Mahmoud Abbas (who is also known as Abu Mazen) in charge, but rather, a "reformed" Palestinian Authority. (arriving at that is a problem in itself, and can mean anything from giving the new rulers of Gaza a thin veneer of legitimacy, to being really put exclusively in charge.)
They also are not asking for an immediate establishment of a Palestinian state, but rather that there should be a clear path toward one. Israel does not want to agree to this, but there is no way a government led by Netanyahu can control what a future Israeli government would do, and the Arabs could always say they can see it coming, even though Israel does not. . (That is why some far right ministers in the current coalition want to do something to make it more difficult.)
Another difference between Mahmoud Abbas and others (besides wanting to be personally put in charge of the Gaza Strip) is that Mahmoud Abbas wants there to be only one Palestinian state (in other words, Gaza and Ramallah united under one government) while Israel, because of security considerations, where in the past they exiled terrorists to Gaza does not want to allow free travel between Gaza and places more tied to Israel.
The problem with the solution of the Arab League is that they don't say how Israel is to accomplish its goals of ending Hamas rule of Gaza and demilitarizing it and freeing all the hostages, nor do they want to join in in the war. (They may have arrived at their position as a result of lobbying by he United States and so they don't need it to be practical, but just to get themselves off the hook.)
I don't see what the absolute objection is to a Palestinian state (aside from the fact it makes areas assigned to that state off the table for annexation some day, which hasn't happened for 57 years and isn't likely to happen under any scenario) because the fact that Lebanon and Syria are independent countries doesn't stop Israel from bombing them or invading them, and if Israel commenced military action against an independent state it would be a more normal and internationally acceptable situation.
Of course it would be good to have a formal alliance between Israel and the new Arab state. An alliance, like with some Druze, is far more possible than a cold peace.
The issue with Israel's reputation is caused by the bombing, and not by ground action. Except that is not against the laws of war, while they think they have trapped Israel into not being able to do anything without violating the laws of war. They think they have a legal case for starvation, and that international law requires that civilians stay there as human shields, but that's not driving the opposition to Israel's conduct of the war. It's the deaths. Not even the massive property destruction.
WRT a Palestinians State, I don't think there is any objection to one in theory (except for the extremist messianic RZ types that want to settle all the land of Israel regardless of the cost in blood, treasure and reputation). The problem is that Palestinian leaders cannot be trusted as long as they educate and indoctrinate their people (cradle to grave) to hate us to the point of annihilating us. even if it means being killed in the process. That they reward familes of terrorists killed trying to do that. That does not inspire confidence in any kind of Palestinian state.
DeleteMost Israelis including many on the left realize that a Palestinians state on its long border with the the West Bank would be Gaza on steroids.
- Sammy Finkelman
ReplyDelete>> . It won’t take long until they are back to their full terrorist capabilities. And whatever tunnels were destroyed by Israel will quickly be rebuilt.
Mo. they won't because if Hamas rule does not end:
1) Simply put, the war will not end.
2) All the hostages will not be released (a deal where all the hostages get released and Hamas stays in control, like some demonstrators in Israel suppose, is simply not in the cards
3) Nobody will anywhere talk of peace negotiations between Israel and any Arab entity, because it would only mean more terrorism.
4) Gaza will never be rebuilt, because any Arab contributor or investor will expect it to e-be destroyed again,
But if the people in charge of Hamas leave Gaza they will be hunted down. They have no place to go.. Iran will not take them. Nor Turkey. Nor Qatar. Maybe they could get a comfortable prison in Israel. and if they do go, Iran will find somebody else to t=commit acts of terrorism and war crimes against Israel.
Unless somebody thinks outside the box. Maybe writers of mysteries and thrillers.,
what is justified is not always what is optimal; there can be other equally valid considerations
ReplyDelete