Debating the Israel-Palestine Conflict-Part 3

Continued from Part 2:

Claim: The IDF is the Most Moral Army in the World.

Argument:

Israel insists it follows international law in the ways it conducts its military operations. It claims that civilians are treated respectfully, and prisoners of war are treated humanely. The Israeli Defense Forces have frequently taken measures to avoid civilian casualties which go beyond what most militaries have done historically. For example, one frequently cited example is efforts to provide advance warning when targeting apartment buildings (purportedly used by Hamas operatives) to allow residents time to evacuate. Residents have received text messages instructing them to leave the building and the Air Force has “knocked” on the roof (dropped nonexplosive or low-impact munitions on the roof to warn of an impending missile strike or bombing).

Counterargument:

In the wake of Israel’s latest war, it’s difficult to comprehend how this claim is still made. With regard to the “knocking on the roof” tactic, others have noted that the warning strikes are often ineffective and can themselves kill civilians. Furthermore, the “knocking” is utilized when Israel is attacking a civilian building which is morally suspect even with a warning. The warnings may only allow 3-15 minutes for evacuation which is inadequate especially for the elderly or disabled. There is now an abundance of testimony indicating that captured Palestinians are seriously mistreated -possibly including torture and sexual abuse. In the latest war, Israel specifically announced that it would “loosen” restrictions on targeting civilian sites. IDF conduct often appears to be calculated to create a deterrent effect by intimidating and frightening the population rather than precisely target enemy combatants. Israel has reduced most of Gaza’s civilian infrastructure to rubble and created so many obstacles to providing aid that Gazans are now dying of famine even though trucks laden with food wait in close proximity to Gaza. Israel has resisted US and international requests to open additional routes into Gaza (until very recently) and has imposed an arbitrary inspection system that severely restricts the food supply to Gazans. The IDF has bombed and shot so indiscriminately that it even killed Israeli hostages who were shirtless, waving white flags and shouting for help in Hebrew. To some extent “collateral damage” may be inevitable as Hamas does embed itself among its own civilians, but this cannot justify the scale of civilian deaths seen in Gaza. Elsewhere, IDF soldiers have looked on as settlers have rampaged through West Bank towns. In the case of some specific Israeli army units such as Nezach Yehudi, the US has considered imposing sanctions due to human rights violations. The ghosts of nearly 15,000 (so far) dead Gazan children and babies would contest the claim that this is an unusually moral army. It is certainly possible that most other militaries are even worse, but the instances of cruelty and the acceptance of a shocking death toll among civilians challenge any broad claim of unique morality. Of course, one could argue that it is difficult to reconcile morality with any military as an army is essentially a national killing machine, but that is another topic.

My Verdict: False

Although Israel has at least identified humane treatment of civilians as a theoretical priority and has taken commendable actions in keeping with this priority in the past, overall, there have been so many repugnant actions committed with impunity, that no valid claim of morality can be made. The massive scale of death and destruction unleashed on Gaza in itself is sufficient to refute the claim of outstanding moral behavior.

What’s Your Verdict?

Claim: Israel can and must defeat Hamas militarily.

Argument:

Given the horrific attack by thousands of Hamas terrorists which resulted in the most Jewish deaths in a single day since the Holocaust, and Hamas’ stated intention to repeat such attacks, Israel must use military force to defeat it and prevent another slaughter of its citizens.

Counterargument:

Hamas is not only a military opponent. It also represents an idea for many Palestinians—that of emancipation and national sovereignty. An idea cannot be defeated by military force alone. Hamas is also the personification of Palestinian rage, which is now a thousand times more potent. The war has not led to the collapse of Hamas thus far and has led to marked isolation of Israel. Israel fell into Hamas’ trap by its massive retaliation which has only strengthened the Palestinian cause and brought the world’s attention to their plight. The current situation is somewhat similar to Israel’s 1982 war against the PLO in Lebanon. Although one could argue the PLO was vanquished in that war, it was replaced by a graver threat—Hezbollah. Perhaps Israel will succeed in killing the leaders of Hamas and killing thousands more fighters. However, the rage and resentment among Palestinians in Gaza who are witnessing the utter destruction of their homes and families will enable swift recruitment for any newly emergent group that wishes to fight Israel.

My Verdict: False

Although peace will not be achieved with Hamas in power (or with Bibi Netanyahu in power, for that matter), the path to replacing Hamas will not be achieved through military force alone. Israel has proposed no credible alternative to Hamas leadership thus far but must do so or it will be mired in Gaza for years to come.

What’s your Verdict?

Claim: Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.

Argument:

Israel’s intention is to eliminate the Palestinians as demonstrated by its killing of over 30,000 people, mostly women and children, thus far, and its implementation of restrictions on aid which has resulted in famine in northern Gaza. Israel’s denial of Palestinian Peoplehood and its efforts to prevent establishment of a Palestinian statehood are another facet of this genocidal push.

Counterargument:

If Israel wished to commit genocide, it could have easily eradicated most of the population in Gaza in short order. Israel has in fact taken measures to evacuate civilians before launching military options and has allowed significant amounts of aid into Gaza. Israel’s hand has often been forced due to Hamas’ tactic of embedding itself in residential buildings, hospitals, mosques, schools, and other civilian sites.

My Verdict: False

Although Israel’s conduct of this war has, in many ways been morally reprehensible and likely includes many instances of war crimes, it has not committed genocide by any stretch of the imagination. That does not, of course, mean that all its actions have been justifiable.

What’s Your Verdict?

Claim: Pro-Palestinian protesters on college campuses should be admired as social justice warriors.

Argument:

The protesters are denouncing Israel as an oppressive, white, colonialist state that is oppressing the disenfranchised Palestinian people.

Counterargument:

The protesters positions and slogans evince a lack of understanding of historical nuances of the Palestinian-Israel conflict. The “one side is right; one side is wrong” simplistic viewpoint in which the world is divided into clearcut oppressors and oppressed is wrongheaded and self-righteous. The protesters have either outright endorsed or ignored the heinous atrocities perpetrated by Hamas, and the ongoing captivity of Israeli civilian hostages. Failure to call for the release of innocent Israeli civilians held hostage by Hamas along with demands for a ceasefire is moral hypocrisy. They also seem to ignore the fact that Israel’s population is not actually predominantly ‘white;’ the indelible impact of the Holocaust on Jews; the rationale for establishing a Jewish state as a safe haven; and the impact of their actions on many Jewish students who feel unsafe on their campuses. The protesters believe so strongly in their simplified perspective that they see no irony in seeking to coerce others to accept their demands. They also favor cutting off all contact with Israeli academia—a step which eliminates dialogue between conflicted parties at a time when such dialogue is most critically needed.

My Verdict: False

Although their hearts are no doubt in the right place and they clearly believe they are fighting injustice, their actions and choice to entirely support one side and denounce the other do not serve as a bridge between the two sides in this complex conflict. Rather than demanding negotiations and dialogue which might lead to resolution of this nightmare, their actions serve to harden positions, import the conflict’s rancor to foreign shores, and prolong the cycle of death and destruction.

What’s Your Verdict? 

Claim: Antisemitism is tolerated to a far greater extent than other forms of bias in the US.

Argument:

Discrimination against minorities—Blacks, Hispanics, LGBTQ+, etc. is roundly condemned in the US. It is generally accepted that the minority is the final arbiter of whether or not an act or statement is offensive. We strive to avoid blatant bias but also have learned to avoid microaggressions. However, in the case of antisemitism, Jews are being told they are wrong to feel threatened by statements, chants, and acts which they encounter. This causes many Jews to feel gaslighted as the antisemitism they perceive is simply dismissed by others claiming to be acting in the name of morality. As others have noted, it’s a lonely time to be a Jew. Jews in the US have often fought hard for progressive causes (Rabbi Abraham Heschel marched in Selma alongside Martin Luther King, Jr., as one example), but many Jews now feel left in the lurch by their erstwhile allies.

Counterargument:

Jews are exaggerating the claims of antisemitism in order to censor criticism of Israeli government actions. Jews are characterizing all criticism of Israel as antisemitic.

My Verdict: True—at least in the case of progressives who would ordinarily be highly attuned to the iniquity of discrimination and strongly determined to struggle against it.

Although, it is true that many people are being too quick to condemn all criticism of Israel as antisemitism, there is also no question that many Jews are feeling threatened and attacked merely because they are Jewish. It is also clear that the response has been tepid compared to how progressives would react to even microaggressions perpetrated against other minorities.

What’s Your Verdict?

Claim: Opposition to Israel is antisemitism

Argument:

One hears chants of “From the River to the Sea” (which to many Jewish ears suggests the eradication of Israel and its Jewish population) and praise of intifada (which recalls the recurring suicide bus bombings during the second intifada in the early 2000s in Israel). Furthermore, more blatantly antisemitic chants have also been reported such as “Jews, go back to Poland” and even “kill the Jews.” The condemnations of Israel are simply cover for latent antisemitism. It can be difficult to distinguish between anti-Zionist or anti-Israeli government protests and antisemitism as Israel has become a core element of Jewish spirituality. Rabbis often focus their sermons on Israel. While generally advocating for peace and increased understanding between Israel and Palestinians, ultimately, Jewish leaders have tended to avoid direct confrontation with Israel’s government. One side effect of this approach is a rather murky separation between criticism of Judaism vs criticism of Israeli policy. The denial of Israel’s right to exist, whether it’s considered antisemitism or not, is frightening to many Jews, just as it would be threatening to Americans to hear the world calling for its elimination.

Counterargument:

Many Jews are participating in the protests and believe their actions align with Jewish values more convincingly than do the actions of the right-wing Israeli governments they have grown up with. They believe that Israel’s government policies of blocking the creation of a Palestinian state, mistreating Palestinians under its control and inflicting a massive amount of civilian deaths through its conduct of the war in Gaza all violate basic Jewish principles. Jewish Voices for Peace has played a leading role in organizing some of the largest demonstrations.  The Torah urges Jews to “love the stranger as yourself for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.” Perhaps Jews, of all people, given their history, should be the first to make efforts to protect others from systematic injustice and killing. It is not antisemitic to denounce this Israeli government’s actions—a government that includes Jewish terrorists such as Itamar Ben-Gvir. The overwhelming majority of protesters do not endorse antisemitism and do not interpret their chants as calling for the death of Jews. Sadly, in some cases counter protesters are the ones who have more often become violent.

My Verdict: False—at least with regard to opposing specific Israeli government policies and actions.

Although there are undoubtedly examples of blatant antisemitic acts and statements among the protesters and the general population, the majority are protesting against the war and ongoing denial of legitimate Palestinian rights. Many Israeli government policies and its conduct of the war in Gaza are reprehensible. Thus, it is entirely reasonable to protest.

What’s Your Verdict?