As a follow-up to the previous post, I hope it is obvious to
my readers that there is a profound distinction between pursuing
justice/revenge and self-defense. Israel’s actions in Gaza are defensible to
the extent that they make it less likely that an attack like October 7 will
ever happen again. If it were not possible to eliminate Hamas as a military
force (distinct from a political ideology) or at least degrade them as a
fighting force so that it would take them years to rebuild then fighting this
war would be immoral. Obviously, one cannot justify killing Palestinian
civilians simply in retaliation for Hamas’ actions. (As opposed to accepting
their deaths as tragic collateral damage brought about by Hamas’ decision to
use their own people as human shields.) But even the death of Hamas leaders by
themselves could not be justified if it were simply a matter of giving them
what they deserve.
If Yahya Sinwar would release the hostages and decide to
live in peace with Israel, then Israel should accept a ceasefire with Hamas.
Granted, I have a hard time imagining what Sinwar could say at this point that
could convince me that he was serious about peace. He may deserve death many
times over but that is not our job. I do not care about giving members of Hamas
what they deserve. All that matters is protecting the lives of the people
living in Israel.
The Oslo Accords made sense in theory. If Yassir Arafat was
willing to live in peace with Israel, then the right thing to do was to give
him control over the West Bank and Gaza. It was not that Arafat suddenly became
a good person whose terrorism should be forgiven. In truth, Israel was relying
on his lack of virtue, to be willing to sell out his principles in exchange for
political power and respectability. It turned out in the end that Arafat had no
intention of pursuing peace and Israel paid the price for trusting him.
Similarly, I supported Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 on the logic that,
even if it would not lead to peace, it would place Israeli soldiers out of
immediate harm’s way as well as grant Israel the moral credibility on the
international stage to respond to Palestinian terrorism.
My fundamental mistake regarding the peace process was that
I assumed that there was a significant element of the opposition to Israel, at
least in the West, that was rational and moral and could, therefore, be
satisfied with good faith efforts on the part of Israel to compromise and
demonstrate that it took what its critics said to heart. Furthermore, I assumed
that the threat of alienating the “decent” opponents of Israel would keep the
radicals in line. For example, one would have imagined that Hamas would tell
its fighters not to murder children because if pictures of dead Israeli babies
showed up on TV that would undermine support for the Palestinian cause among
American college students. I was wrong in these assumptions. As such, more than
feeling betrayed by the Palestinians for turning down every chance they had for
a State of their own, I feel betrayed by the Western Left and no longer trust
them to make any pretense of living up to their own stated values when it comes
to Israel.
Under the present circumstances, the foundation of my
approach to Israel is that I do not see how there can be any concessions on the
part of Israel that would not lead directly to dead Israelis and likely even dead Jews around the world. As such, there
are no concessions that Israel can make in good faith. Even the concessions that Israel
offers the United States, such as allowing aid to Gaza that will go straight to Hamas, should be seen as making a Faustian bargain of sacrificing Israeli lives in exchange for weapons and a veto at the United Nations. Perhaps, it is necessary but certainly not something that I can ever be comfortable with.
No comments:
Post a Comment