[OPINION and ANALYSIS]
In an event with huge Middle Eastern and global ramifications, Hamas militants attacked innocent attendees at an Israeli music festival. They apparently murdered, kidnapped and committed other horrific atrocities on what now appears to be well over 1,000 Israelis and foreign visitors.
In turn, Israel has launched what amounts to a full scale military response and attacked Hamas’ home in Gaza causing widespread, death, damage and destruction to Gazans, many of whom were/are not members of Hamas. (Members of Hamas make up only a fraction of the total population of Gaza.)) Hundreds of thousands are being forced to flee in mass while war and bloodshed is raging about them. To add to the horror, in the last several days, a hospital in Gaza was destroyed by what was originally thought to be an Israelis missile, but more recent video evidence seems to indicate that it may have been caused by a malfunctioning Hamas missile. In any event, again hundreds of innocent lives were lost.
President Biden has shown clear support for Israel. He has sent one, perhaps two, aircraft carrier battle groups to the Eastern Mediterranean presumably to keep other potential Israeli adversaries from attacking Israel. Clearly this action also puts U.S. military forces in harm’s way and risks involving the U.S. in yet another foreign imbroglio. And now, we hear news that a U.S. Navy destroyer, has shot down several attack drones and cruise missiles apparently fired from Yemen hundreds of miles away presumably at Israel, by Houthi rebels who otherwise have no apparent interest in the Hamas-Israeli conflict, other than an affiliation with Iran and a common religion with Hamas. The world is holding its collective breath waiting to see if Hezbollah, Syria, Fatah or other even larger global powers also join the fray.
Condensing an opinion on this extremely volatile and fast-moving situation at this point is impossible. However, when formulating a response, it is hoped that everyone, including both Republican and Democratic politicians and the leaders of all nations, will not further inflame an extremely complex and dangerous situation just to score political points. The national security of the U.S., religion, budgetary constraints and even the war in Ukraine have crept into the equation as to what to do and which side to support. Thus, given how divided the American public already is on so many issues, overreaction by anyone is decidedly not in the best interests of the nation as a whole.
The natural reaction of people on both sides of this conflict is, of course, going to be one of horror and outrage. Unfortunately, one already hears tales of job offers being rescinded, people being fired and what not for expressing strongly held views on this extremely complex situation. While, there are limits as to how far one should go in expressing their views, it must also be remembered that public debate is a good thing and is protected from governmental infringement by the First Amendment. Unfortunately, private parties (to whom First Amendment restrictions do not apply) have used their position of power and influence to stifle expression that is contrary to their own views. Again, we point to employers firing and/or rescinding job offers and/or to former benefactors cutting off donations to various collegiate institutions as having been the primary culprits in this regard. Doing these kinds of things only makes the censor look like an intellectual bully who is unwilling to allow expression and debate or to let the facts speak for themselves. They look like they only want to force their version of history down everyone’s throat. This is not good because it is a serious form of repression by primarily wealthy individuals and companies against their beneficiaries and educational institutions who, in the later case, were established largely to learn about, and independently explore, objective truth—regardless of what the truth is, and who it helps and who it hurts. Moreover, the censorship being attempted by these benefactors and employers on those over whom they have disproportionate influence only feeds into the narrative that the religion of the would-be censors has long held too much influence on American politics. Moreover, if all companies and large donors do the same thing, it will eventually gut all of our rights to freedom of speech under the First Amendment. Americans will, in essence, be barred from debate by large corporations and wealthy people. In a free society all must occasionally bear the burden of listening to people loudly express opinions and advocate for policy positions that are at odds with their own. There’s no free lunch, that’s but one price of freedom that we all must bear.
However, before any assertions, policy or actions are made, set or taken a multitude of things must be considered. A huge one is that notwithstanding what many neo-fascists may say, it is beyond dispute that the Holocaust did, in fact, occur. Millions of innocent Jews were mercilessly slaughtered a the hands of Hitler and Nazi Germany. There are, however, other very significant questions that must be answered. These questions include: (i) Going back through history have the Israelites and/or Israelis always been the native inhabitants of present day Israel? (ii) Why was the modern day state of Israel created? (ii) Wasn’t modern day Israel thrust upon the native Palestinians over their strong objections after World War II by the United Nations and/or Western European Powers? (iii) Wasn’t Israel created at least partially, if not mostly, because of European and/or Russian persecution of the Jews dating back decades if not centuries? (Regarding (iii), consider the Russian pogroms against the Jews in the early 1900s); (iv) Wasn’t Israel created at least partially, if not mostly because of Nazi Germany’s slaughter of millions of Jews during WWII? (v) Aren’t the Jews justified in feeling in feeling threatened and wanting the safety of their own homeland? (vi) Don’t the Palestinians have considerable justification in feeling very wronged by the rest of the World when the rest of the World essentially gave the Jews the state of Israel on lands that were Palestinian, without Palestinian consent? (vii) Prior to the horrible events of the last several days, hasn’t the vast majority of Gaza’s population of two million lived in impoverished and crowded conditions for many years, due at least to some extent to Israel’s embargo policies cutting of the access of Gazans to essential goods and services? (viii) In short, wasn’t something like the events of the last few days foreseeable in large part because of the poor living conditions in Gaza coupled with Israeli policies that contributed to Hamas/Palestinian anger? (ix) To what extent have Israeli policies in the past contributed to the dire and impoverished conditions of Gaza thus creating further hostility and resentment amongst its inhabitants and thus engendering more support for Hamas? (x) If (ix) is true, would not common sense tell anyone that after decades of living under those conditions that violence would erupt, especially if Israel continues, in violation of international law, as it has done, to expand its settlements (even beyond UN chartered borders and the lands Israel previously acquired by military action) into yet more formerly Palestinian controlled areas? (xi) To what extent was the United States responsible for any atrocities ultimately leading to the creation of the state of Israel? and (xii) To what extent did the U.S. participate in or cause the creation of the state of Israel?
Usually the answers to questions such as the foregoing will cause anyone making a good faith effort to truly resolve the issue in a just and fair manner to ask more and more questions. Importantly, the result is almost sure to generate an extremely complicated picture of a situation where both sides have at least some legitimate grievances against the other. This is not to say that the killing and harming of innocent people is justified, but merely to state what the likely outcome of any in-depth analysis would be.
Unfortunately, most of the arguments you hear from virtually every side tend to focus just on a few facts, and conveniently overlook the many valid points that the other side has. Truth is an elusive concept, because it often depends upon whether the information one has is complete and which set of facts one considers. Naturally, bias, self-interest and, in this case, fear also taint one’s ability to determine the truth.
It must be remembered that extreme violence merely engenders hatred and condemns future generations to the Hell that is eternal conflict. Insofar as Hamas is concerned, one might ask them how they expect those in Israel and the United States to continue to speak up for them, if they engage in unspeakable acts of terror. How can they expect their Israeli neighbors and future generations to ever forgive them for their horrific acts? Realizing that many Palestinians feel, with substantial justification, that they’ve also suffered grave injustices at the hands of the Israelis, one might ask them: What did murdering innocent people, including if some reports are correct, the elderly and children accomplish? Similarly, one might ask the Israeli government whether similar resentment will not be created on the Palestinian side by laying siege to, bombarding, and then invading an already impoverished Gaza all while cutting off or limiting its essential food, water and electricity? Even if a peace deal were to be signed tomorrow the lingering resentment and hostility of the aggrieved victims’ families (now on both sides) will be felt for generations and might very well form the basis for future violent conflict. This fact, however does not mean that the process of generating earned renewed trust and good will should not be undertaken. The peoples of the Middle East and around the world have no choice. Efforts at lasting peace must be made, the stakes are too high.
There’s also, of course, the never-ending religious issue. Rational actors, were they thinking clearly, would minimize it. Why? Historically, religion has repeatedly been shown to be the fuel for the fires of endless war and conflict. And what’s just as bad, is that all religions, incorporate into their belief system concepts that defy human experience and logic. That means their religious faith-based beliefs don’t make sense to anyone except to “believers” of the religion in question who, in turn, “believe” based merely on faith alone—and not because it makes any worldly logical sense to anyone who does not share their beliefs. This means that conflicts based in significant part on religion are almost always extremely difficult to resolve because rational thought is often not the primary manner in which decisions are made. Moreover, religion tends to cause bigotry which in turn causes the bigot to minimize the importance of the life of the non-believer. This is dangerous. The point is that while the political reality is that religion will be a big issue, the more the parties can minimize its importance (and convince the public to do likewise), the better off everyone will be.
In any event, several cold hard realities have to be confronted. First of all, Israel is a reality. It has a significant population, a vibrant economy and one of the premier militaries in the world. It’s major ally has the best military and largest economy in the World. Without war on a grand or global scale, Israel is not very likely to be eliminated. Secondly, there’s the influence that the Jewish community has on American politics. It is very significant. Most U.S. politicians believe that the Jewish vote and Jewish financial support are important considerations come election time. Moreover, many Jews serve in public office. As such, it is unlikely that the U.S. will waiver in its support of Israel’s right to exist and it’s right to defend itself any time soon.
Indeed, endless points and questions could be asked and made. However, a couple of them need to be noted. One is the immensely complicated international situation as it relates not only to Israel, but the entire Middle East, and its oil. To name just a few, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Jordon and the United States all have very direct interests in security/boundary questions pertaining to Israel. The entire World, including China, have important interests relating to oil and more recently to the tremendous threat posed by nuclear arms proliferation. Israel very probably has nuclear weapons, Iran is very close to having them and Saudi Arabia is probably very desirous of acquiring them as well. The problem is that these countries are potential adversaries of, if not the U.S., then one another.
From our perspective, the biggest factors driving the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinian cause date back to the circumstances founding the state of Israel and the view held by Palestinians that their lands were unlawfully taken from them by the World community and given to Israel. If true, this would outrage anyone. Jews, on the other hand, have every justification for feeling wrongfully persecuted by European powers and the need for a safe place—their own homeland. Did these facts justify having the rest of the world give Palestinian lands to the newly forming state of Israel?
The view here is that the answer is obvious, and is a big reason why, from a moral perspective Europe, Russia and even the U.S. bear some moral responsibility for the quagmire created. If they/we broke it
they/we bear some responsibility to help the Israelis and Palestinians fix it and not let the whole situation spiral out of control.
America owes a duty to Jews to see to it that while they live here in the U.S. that they are like all other American citizens and that they are safe and will not be discriminated against. The same is true for Muslims. However, to unemotional and truly rational thinkers, support of the state of Israel should not be equated with respect of Judaism and respect of Judaism shouldn’t be equated with support fo the state of Israel. The equating of Judaism with the existence of Israel is a only belief in the minds of more devout Jews. It was created by ancient religious texts that are not subscribed to by increasingly large numbers of more secular Jews and non-Jews alike. The same thing can be said with respect to any Islamic claims to any particular piece of land or territory in places like Jerusalem. To the rational thinker, opinions supporting or opposing a particular government governed by Muslims should not to be equated with support or non-support of the religion of Islam and vice versa. ** All of this is yet another example, of religion ill-advisedly creeping into an area, namely that of solving political and societal issues, that should properly be left to more logical, rational and pragmatic considerations.
Having said, this, the reality is that many, if not most, political leaders, if not their own citizens, do not look at it this situation in this more logical fashion. As a result, everyone has to deal with this very thick and virtually impenetrable extra layer of complexity. Regardless of the existence of this complication, however, if the U.S. were to drop support for Israel tomorrow, it would not, and should not, at least to rational thinkers, be considered to be the same thing as renewing the persecution of the Jews and their Jewish religion. And further, this is one reason why at least occasionally standing up for the Palestinian cause should not always be taken as being anti-Jewish. In other words, being against something Israel has done or supporting something the Palestinians have done, is not necessarily, in every instance, the same thing as being anti-Jewish or antisemitic. Too often, however, more devout Jews and/or more fervent Israeli supporters don’t view it this way and condemn anyone uttering one word in support of the Palestinians or against Israel as being antisemitic—and when they do—it amounts to trying to improperly impose Jewish beliefs on the entire American public.
In any event, while the U.S. should provide reasonable military support to Israel to defend itself and its citizens, the U.S. government owes it to all Americans to look out first, and foremost, for our own national interests.
The bottom line, however, is that everyone needs to refrain from loudly proclaiming what should be done without first spending time to ascertain and then carefully consider the actual facts and the long term consequences of any action. Caution must be exercised by everyone involved including the U.S. government. While reasonably measured acts to help Israel preserve it’s basic security are appropriate, the U.S. government must take great care not to get militarily involved. Doing so, might well offend Arab and other interests and sensibilities in the region. Doing so will only have negative consequences for the U.S. and further open the door Russian, Chinese and Iranian interests (if not military intervention) in the region. In this regard, the U.S. must do a better job of convincing the Israelis to take a more realistic approach to dealing with the very legitimate needs, wants and desires of the Palestinians on both the West Bank and in Gaza.
[At the end of this article are a few supplemental end notes that are worthy of consideration.]
[This article was written and published totally without the assistance of any artificial intelligence software.]
David Dixon Lentz October 23, 2023
© Copyright 2023, David Dixon Lentz, All Rights Reserved.
ENDNOTES
** More devoted Muslims and Jews will of course, vehemently object to these notions. To them we apologize. We respect their religion and the right to worship it. However, serious problems with now global ramifications occur that arise out of belief systems that cannot be justified by verifed scientific methods and rational thought. It is indeed difficult to reject what one has been taught from childhood by one’s parents, teachers, loved ones, religious leaders and/or by custom and tradition. However, the failure to be rational is becoming an increasingly dangerous short-coming in an increasingly polarized world. If mankind is to survive rational thought must prevail.
Supplemental Notes:
Long term peace requires that the adversaries face the full facts, and then be realistic in dealing with how to resolve their problems in a practical manner in a way that is most likely to achieve long term peace. This requires a large amount of respect for all people regardless of the side that they were or are on. Those who seek to suppress or alter information, in the end, are usually the enemies of long term peace.
The events of the last few weeks demonstrate yet again, that extremist and/or militant elements in any political faction almost always take actions that are overly aggressive and don’t take into account the practicalities of a situation. Militants and extremists almost always have an overly simplistic view of the nature of a situation and are too emotional in their decision-making. Militants, when they act, often cause more long term damage than good. Their actions often cause long term bitterness and resentment in others, which in turn, forms the basis for future long term conflict. These same things can be said, in many instances, about “hard-line” political leaders.
Peace never lasts if one group feels unfairly impoverished or suppressed for very long under bad enough conditions. Leaders who do not recognize this fact, do a great disservice to their constituency.