Two Talking Points and Field Trips are For Fun
Field trips are for fun. Informal education. Social bonding.
Interrupted.
I wasn’t finished processing the latest on Mamdani. But sounds like damage control will be needed. Doesn’t mean I disagree with much of what he says about Netanyahu. I’ve certainly demonstrated against him countless times.
My accusations against Netanyahu make Mamdani’s look lame. Disproportionate retaliation in Gaza. Understatement. Doesn’t mean I’d shed a tear had Israeli security and defense forces eliminated every Nukhba terrorist after October 7. But I hold Bibi accountable for the polarization of Israeli society.
I don’t object to others, in other places, protesting Netanyahu’s actions and policies. In fact, I beg of friends and family abroad to bring the message to people of influence in their community and political circles that pressure should be placed on Israel to change, to move towards a peaceful solution to the conflict with the Palestinians, in Gaza and the West Bank – in Palestine.
But if leaders abroad comply, their credibility and good intent must be measured by similarly decrying evil of other leaders, from the leadership of Hamas to Putin, to mention a few.
Thoughts on the heels of discussion with friends visiting from the US. They were familiar with recently released Sinwar documents found by Israeli security services after October 7. Sinwar’s orders for October 7 foresaw potentially extreme, even nuclear, Israeli retaliation. Clear message: Hamas destroying Israel at the expense of the safety of his people. Legitimate talking point.
Field trip news item distracted us Friday morning. Not a summer camp outing. West Bank settlers’ field trip. To a Palestinian village in Area B (where Israelis are required to have IDF authorization to visit). Haim’s first reaction, with unrelinquished naivete we often share, “Field trip to Area B?” Our next questions were back on course: It wasn’t cleared with the army? Who goes on such a trip?
Leftist social media began discussing nuances of labelling the events as a terrorist attack. And analyzing conventional media reports reflecting what is mainstreamed or normalized or what slant prevails, or what slant is losing grounds.
What did happen? Reports, updates, video clips flooded my feed. From the Palestinian village in Area B, it was clear.
Unauthorized, armed, Jewish settlers tour the village – nothing less than provocation. Weapons drawn, aimed at unarmed Palestinians, and then, the settlers met with resistance. IDF soldiers arrived at the scene to distance the settlers from the Palestinians, settlers prior to any shots chanting, “Revenge, revenge.”
Apparently, for these settlers, the existence of Palestinians is adequate justification for revenge. Tension mounted. A Palestinian snatched a soldier’s weapon. The death of the latter tragically followed. Two Israelis and four Palestinians were killed.
Escalation. Settler revenge attacks. Military force brought to squelch Palestinian retaliation. Finance Minister Smotrich calls for strong IDF response to the actions of the murderous Palestinian village and applauded West Bank settlers as steadfast defenders of the existence of Israel against Palestinian terrorists.
Personal WhatsApp messages briefly preoccupied me, writing to a few Palestinian friends urging them to be safe. Each responded expressing gratitude for the concern and solidarity. Doesn’t mean I am not also concerned about the wellbeing of my cousin in the West Bank. Doesn’t mean I think Israelis should live there.
Urgent messages with visuals from multiple organizations asking leaders abroad to interfere, to prevent imminent Israeli force in response. A sticker grabbed me, in bright red letters (in Hebrew): Enough of Jewish terrorism in the State of Palestine. In smaller green letters: Recognizing Palestine.
For most Israelis hardly a palatable statement at the moment, but now is the moment. But we have lost sight of strategic approaches. Unless you’re determined to see another Netanyahu government elected at the end of October. Netanyahu, the prime minister repeatedly risking lives of Israeli soldiers, increased force against Palestinians when acts of Jewish settler terrorism are enabled, endorsed, and worse. When inaction is complicity. It doesn’t mean defense is indefensible. But endangering IDF soldiers’ lives as a result of political considerations driving military actions surely means the prime minister is less than concerned with the wellbeing of his people.
Who said talking points?
Harriet Gimpel, July 26, 2026