search
Judy Halper
Left is not a dirty word

The year of the snake

Image: Holger Krisp via Wikimedia Commons
Image: Holger Krisp via Wikimedia Commons

Many will write this week about the year that has passed, many more eloquently than I could. It’s a natural point to “stop and take stock of the situation.” Which leads me, rather than dwelling on the painful past, to ask a few questions about the near future.

As the incursion into Lebanon continues, the tone in the media has changed. It’s partly a result of the stunning military success in Lebanon and the number of Hezbollah leaders killed, and partly a result of the fact that many in the North have been begging for this battle since Oct. 8, after they were forced to leave their homes or stayed to face a steady rain of missiles and drones. Many, understandably, want all of the Hezbollah-associated villages near the border to be cleared out.

And it’s partly a result of the same sort of intelligence failure we saw a year ago in Gaza: Troops discovered unknown tunnels under the border, more arms in the hands of Hezbollah operatives than had been thought.

But the hyperbole is increasingly hyping war with Iran.

“We have no choice,” is the common mantra, whether discussing intensifying the operation in Lebanon or retaliation for last week’s Iranian ballistic missile attack.

“We need to cut off the snake’s head,” is another (sometimes it’s an octopus with deadly tentacles) – a metaphor that precedes a discourse on the three or four types of retaliation we could possibly exact.

And Iran is already threatening retaliation for our retaliation. Not tit for tat. An eye for an eye.

The hostages? After a year, they are old news. Those little yellow ribbon pins have become fashion statements, but the commentators mostly mention them in passing these days. As Bibi glibly told us months ago, they will wait. His choice, not theirs, not ours. In any case, since the rocket attacks, the mass demonstrations have been called off, so hostages and Oct. 7 stories have been relegated to the human-interest segments. As the terrible date comes around, we will have private and televised ceremonies of grief and possibly an official one involving a woman talking to herself. The day of reckoning has not yet come, and we are encouraged to just sit tight.

Here is another sentence I’ve been seeing a lot lately, mostly in foreign media: Israel is increasingly willing to risk all-out war in the region.

I prefer to call the snake catcher or simply give them a wide berth

Which leads me back to that first sentence: We have no choice. Because we always have a choice. We might, for example choose to finish off what we’ve already started in Lebanon as quickly as possible and let Iran know we’ll call it even. I admit that 180 is a large number of heavy ballistic missiles to fire at one small country. And yet, for all their firepower, they did little real damage. While we have done quite a bit of damage. If someone is keeping score, surely the ability to shrug off an enormous missile attack and keep fighting on all fronts should count for extra points.

Or we might choose to put more effort into negotiating a settlement. Our bottom line is clear – moving Hezbollah north of the Litani river. Instead of killing off leaders, one after the other, we might put some effort into finding one who will agree to our terms in return for a ceasefire.

The commentators, many ex-military or intelligence, see an opportunity. “We should hit them hard.” If our enemy appears weak, we need to press our advantage. They forget that the Oct. 7 incursion happened precisely because Hamas thought we were weak, thought they had the weight of other countries behind them.

And if you want to talk about snakes, I have killed one or two real live vipers in my day, cutting off their heads with a garden hoe. Only when there was no choice; only when I was willing to risk getting bit or accidentally chopping off my own toe in order to protect the baby in the room. I prefer to call the snake catcher or simply give them a wide berth. The point is, there is more than one way to deal with a snake.

The particular snake’s head in question is a large, well-armed country that is currently supplying Russia with drones and weapons. I have seen the pictures of eastern Ukraine. That black destruction is not what I wish for my own country. It’s a hard fact, but one we must take into account before deciding on a course of action.

Yes, we are under threat. But we are also a threat to ourselves. Do we need to be snake killers or can we be snake catchers?  We have the power to destroy some snakes’ dens, but we cannot kill all the snakes – certainly not the ones as far away as Iran. We can even cut off some snakes’ heads, but anyone who has ever killed a snake knows to stay away from the fangs, even after the snake is dead. We are not getting rid of the venom – the hatred – that will poison us all if we are not careful.

Our government’s choices in the next few weeks will determine whether we engage in further escalation in our noisy rattle-shaking contest with Iran, or whether we decide, for once, to do what is best for Israel and its citizens.

Even now, we have alternatives. My question is not whether we have choices, but whether our government is capable of making the right ones. My question is not whether there are snakes, but whether there are better ways of dealing with them. My question is not whether we need a larger war, but how we can obtain a better peace.

And, after a year of captivity: Who will bring the hostages home?

About the Author
Judy Halper is a member of a kibbutz in the center of the country. She has worked as a dairywoman, plumber and veggie cook, and as a science writer. Today she volunteers in Na'am Arab Women in the Center and works part time for Wahat al-Salam/Neve Shalom.
Related Topics
Related Posts