On September 11, 2001, I awoke early to look at apartments across New York City. After visiting an apartment in Brooklyn I planned to never step into again, I stopped at a bodega for a coffee. On the small television behind the counter, the clerk was watching the news of a plane crashing into one of the World Trade Center towers. Without listening closely, I assumed that it must have been a small craft and pilot error. In the moment, I could not conceive of it being deliberate. After hopping on the subway and reaching midtown, I heard about the second crash and hearsay of others near DC. From my vantage near the library I could see the columns of smoke rising from the towers, and watched them both eventually collapse. In the days and weeks that followed grew a sense of unity that was unique in my lifetime, a collective hurt stronger than our many differences. Much of the world offered its heartfelt support, despite our status as a fading superpower. That support faded over the years that followed as it became increasingly apparent that in attacking Iraq, we were destroying a nation with no culpability for 9/11.
Early on October 7, 2023 I opened social media to see unbelievably gruesome reports and footage from an ongoing attack on Israel by Hamas. Simply stated, it was shocking. In his essay, The Day the Delusion Died, commentator Konstantin Kisin wrote, "A friend of mine joked that she woke up on October 7 as a liberal and went to bed that evening as a 65-year-old conservative. But it wasn't really a joke and she wasn't the only one." The day similarly crystalized my thinking around Israel and what has been referred to as the Palestinian question. It was not just a result of the massacre in Israel but the global response, as well. In contrast to the almost uniform support the US experienced after 9/11, there were voices demanding that Israel temper its response to the massacre even before we had any idea how many had been killed and kidnapped. Some of that reaction came from people who objected to the existence of the state of Israel. They view it as a settler colonial nation oppressing the native Palestinians. Many taking on that perspective reflect confusion over what they have seen since October 7 and ignorance of the history of Israel and Palestine. I do not say this from deep expertise, it just seems obvious. Many of the people who blame Israel for stealing land before Israel existed as a state are just clearly wrong. As with India and what became Pakistan, the British partitioned the land on the basis of religious and cultural difference. It was an opportunity for both peoples to form their own independent state. Regardless of the history of conflict before and after the partition, it is simply true that the Jews took the opportunity to form a state, and the Arabs, who became the Palestinians, did not.
It is not clear that there has ever been a time when the Palestinians collectively valued having an independent state more than they wanted the end of Israel. Like many, I didn't realize that when we talk about refugee camps in Gaza, like Rafah, we are talking about settlements that were established over 70 years ago. In most places we would just call them cities. The fact that Palestinians don't offers a view into their collective mindset. In its history, Israel has repeatedly attempted to trade land, often taken after war, for peace with its neighbors. The last time was in 2005 when they removed the military and evacuated Jewish settlements from Gaza granting limited autonomy to the Palestinians while continuing to control the borders for security. It is arguable that October 7 is the result of that limited self governance. Billions in international aid over the years went to digging deep tunnels under the entirety of the Gaza Strip and making the leaders of Hamas billionaires. This is central to the war started on October 7. The idea that it was launched for some amorphous desire for freedom seems counter to the state of Gaza prior and the predictable consequences that followed. Considering that the leadership of Gaza is more interested in ending Israel than having a Palestinian state their strategy and goals for the war should be viewed through that lens. Doing so helps to clear away some of the fog leading to mass confusion over the war.
The most confusing aspect of the war is how unusual it is. Wars are not usually started from a position of weakness by leaders with the best interests of their people in mind. Since the best interests of the citizens of Gaza are not the point of the war we must look at the impact to understand what is. Many people across the west accuse Israel of committing genocide due to the reported number of deaths of women and children, although the numbers are reported by Hamas. Leaving that aside, many are operating on a mistaken understanding of the purpose of war. They see that the number of Palestinians killed has outpaced the number of Israelis killed on and since October 7 and call for a ceasefire, as if an eye for an eye vengeance is the point. It's not. To maintain its legitimacy, a state attacked is obligated to protect its citizens and attempt to ensure that another attack is made impossible. War is not about morality, but practicality. Still, a number of experts see Israel as conducting their war in a way that is morally unique. They seem to care more about the citizens of Gaza than their leaders do. They send warnings to residential building sheltering Hamas fighters to warn civilians before destroying the building. They also attempt to remove civilians from areas before attempting to engage Hamas. Obviously, these actions serve as a warning to Hamas fighters as well, undermining their own immediate interests. Because it is the nature of war, the most vulnerable suffer the worst, which is why leaders who care about their people don't start wars. The west condemns Israel for those deaths without considering whose strategy those deaths serve. The widespread sharing of images of those deaths, and images from other conflicts and natural disasters falsely claimed to be from this war, shared on social media only harm Israel (and, counterintuitively, the Palestinian civilians).
That is the purpose of this war. Hamas essentially launched a war to martyr Gazans for negative PR on social media against Israel to decrease its support in the west. The nature of the barbaric attacks of October 7, on a peace festival and the kibbutzim, the people with the most faith in the idea of peace between Israelis and Palestinians, was meant to ensure a brutal retaliation. If those deaths were not a part of Hamas' strategy they could easily have protected the entire civilian population of Gaza by allowing them into their vast tunnel network. Instead, Hamas uses the civilian population as human shields. They have gone so far as to launch attacks on Israel directly from humanitarian zones set up for the protection of Palestinian civilians. Considering that the demand of many in the west is for a ceasefire from Israel, rather than a demand that Hamas release hostages, 4 from the US, suggests that the Hamas strategy is working. This is evidence that the positions are not based on principled opposition against war or the suffering of civilians. Despite loud widespread protests against Israel, the same activists seemed to be apathetic to millions of Pakistanis forcibly expelled from Afghanistan, the slaughter of Christians by Islamic terrorists in Africa, or the genocide of Hindus by Muslim extremists in Bangladesh. The idea that the war should end before the hostagesg are released and Hamas out of power, is the epitome of a luxury belief.
Writer Rob Henderson describes a luxury belief as an expressed opinion which benefits the speaker while offering harm to the subject. In this case, wanting to "free Palestine" while shouting "from the river to the sea" is a popular sentiment in the west. Pointing to any practical consideration is claimed to be pro-genocide and promoting Zionism. What it would mean for Palestinians is more death. Although, many of these young activists are ignorant that they are promoting the end of the state of Israel, it should be acknowledged that Israel will fight for the survival of its citizens, like any legitimate state. Even if avceasfire were to happen, it would leave the remaining Palestinians in the hands of the authoritarian leadership of Hamas. There is a contingent of ostensible pro-Palestinians for whom this dynamic is perfectly clear, but they are less pro-Palestinian than ardently anti-Zionist. While they confess to having criticisms of the Israeli government, like Hamas, they are using the conditions in Gaza as an opportunity to attack the very existence of the state of Israel. What makes it obvious that tese are
The June 2024 Munk debate put forth the resolution: Be it resolved, anti-Zionism is antisemitism. Arguing for the motion were Douglas Murray and Natasha Hausdorff. Arguing against were Medhi Hassan and Gideon Levi. The central thesis of the arguments of both Murray and Hausdorff was that Israel exists and in practical terms, ending the "Zionist project" means ending Israel. Levi and Hassan approached the argument against in very different ways. The basis of Levi's argument seemed to be guilt and a very minority view in Israel that the state is a settler colonial project. Hassan's argument was essentially a series of lies by omission. He casts anti-Zionism as merely opposing a political ideology, when that ideology has been fulfilled by the creation of a state for Jewish people, Israel. His argument would have been more honest had he simply said he was opposed to the existence of Israel. He cares less about the needs of the Palestinians than he does the opportunity to disparage the idea of Israel. Hassan and Levi represent the two poles in the pro-Palestine movement, except that Levi's views are more heavily held by supporters in the west, ignorant of the history. Both poles rest on the idea that the Palestinians have never had choices or agency. They disparage the idea of a Jewish state, which already exists, as merely a political ideology to be opposed. They never explain what it means that there is no similar political ideology around creating a Palestinian state, rather than an ideology around ending the only Jewish state.
The nature of watching this war curated by social media is that it's far easier to react than ensure factual clarity. The media takes statements from Hamas led organizations as fact, even as others have been proven false. The number of dead is over-inflated. Misfired rockets blamed on Israel are later shown to be the result of one of the terrorist groups in Gaza. The "starvation" in Gaza is not a lack of food, but a lack of distribution and theft by Hamas. Hassan represents this other cynically dishonest pole of the pro-Palestine movement using the suffering of Gazans to argue against Israel. Hassan offered a striking illustration of how cynical and dishonest his arguments are in the Munk Debate. In one statement he cast Arthur Balfour as an anti-Semite who denounced the evil of Jewish immigration and referred to Jews as an alien and hostile people. Balfour wrote the declaration in support of a Jewish state that became part of the mandate separating Jews and the Arabs of the region. The immediate response to Mehdi's dishonesty by Hausdorff and her closing go a long way to explaining why she and Murray gained support after the debate. Her statements are difficult to dispute and go a long way to clearing the fog of war by illuminating the actual consequences in this war that seem to be ignored.
Comments
Post a Comment