The Jewish conundrum came home Saturday night and left Sunday morning without resolution.
As it inevitably must, the conversation with our 45-year-old son, his 43-year-old Jewish-by-choice wife, 14-year-old grandson and 11-year-old granddaughter turned to the war and what, if anything, could be done to minimize deaths of Palestinian civilians in Gaza caught in the vortex of Israel’s mission to destroy Hamas.
Don’t expect to read any solutions here. Gilda and I have none. Even our justification for the Israeli response to October 7 rings hollower as each bomb, even those hitting its intended target, brings more collateral casualties. Pictures of dead and injured Palestinian children have erased worldwide sympathy for the Israeli victims of October 7. Israel has lost the public relations front of this righteous war.
One has to be cold-blooded, heartless, inhuman not to grieve at the loss of innocents. On both sides of the border.
How does a nation confront an enemy that has no moral boundaries, that hides amidst the very people it claims to represent and seeks to protect, thereby exposing them to become the detritus of war? Palestinians of Gaza are pawns of Hamas as a defensive shield or, tragically, photo fodder to manipulate worldwide public opinion.
Last Saturday, 10 weeks to the day after Hamas violated any semblance of humane resistance to Israel’s existence, The New York Times devoted two pages of its Opinion section to six short essays from Middle Eastern specialists on the topic “What is the path to peace in Gaza?”
As erudite as these authors were, not one addressed several central points—will Hamas renounce violence against Israel and Jews? Will it recognize Israel’s right to exist? How would any such promises be monitored and enforced?
Remember, the Taliban, brothers in extremism, promised to be more tolerant toward women once it reclaimed governance of Afghanistan. How’s that working out?
Not as promised.
Why would anyone expect Hamas to be any more compliant with terms of a cease fire? Why would anyone expect Hamas to be any more democratic, have any more acceptance of democratic values than it has been since ousting Fatah in an election in Gaza in 2006, the only election it has sanctioned? Hamas has been awash in money from Qatar and its own businesses around the world. What makes anyone expect Hamas to use its funds to enhance the lives of Gaza residents when it has failed to do so in the past, diverting its monies into tunnel construction and rocket making?
To no one’s surprise the destruction of an evil force requires extraordinary action. Eight decades later we still debate the morality and efficacy of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Little negative mention is made of the fire bombing of Tokyo that killed more people than either atomic bombing did. Nor is there widespread criticism of the destruction of Dresden in Germany.
For decades Gaza has been a launching pad for indiscriminate rocket and mortar attacks inside Israel. But the taking of 240 hostages after the slaughter of 1,200 and the wounding of thousands forced Israel to wage a campaign, a justified action, to destroy Hamas.
Can Gaza be rebuilt? Look to history for an answer. From the destruction of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan modern economies emerged with democratic values. Their simultaneous renaissances required each population to jettison past beliefs and accept new protocols of governance and responsibility.
Palestinians claim they have been dispossessed from their land inside Israel, a grievance that keeps festering and is fed by Arab countries that never welcomed them into their societies but rather kept them in refugee camps even during the decades that Egypt controlled Gaza and Jordan ruled the West Bank.
Meanwhile, Jewish communities throughout the Muslim world—including Iraq, Syria, and Egypt, where Jews lived for thousands of years, more than a millennia even before Mohammed was born—were uprooted after Israel’s independence.
Many fled to Israel. Palestinians inside Israel also left their homes, some at the instigation of Arab leaders who promised to defeat Israel and allow their return, some out of fear.
At first both groups of refugees stayed in resettlement camps. But the similarity of experience ended there. Israel turned its refugees into members of a vibrant, 21st century country. Arab countries kept the Palestinians in virtual refugee status. Palestinians who stayed inside Israel have more rights and benefits than those who fled to their “brothers” in Muslim lands.
Those who chide Israel for defending its obligation as a country to protect its citizens would do well to search for and demand what rights—from voting rights in free elections, to women’s rights, to freedom of assembly and freedom of speech—residents have in Arab lands.
As our children and grandchildren continued on their journey south, they left with no answers to when and how the war will end, whether Israel will achieve the goals of decapitating Hamas, freeing the remaining hostages and destroying the cache of arms targeted at its populace.
Our only comfort was a difficult conversation involving three generations was started, not in acrimony or contention, but rather in anguish, of wanting to find a path to resolution. It is hard to ask for more at this time.
