Calling Out Aggression in the Mideast

 

As of this writing, the relationship between Israel and Palestine has taken perhaps its most dangerous turn since the Israelis made their controversial decision to leave Gaza in August 2005. To my mind, that agonizing decision was, at the time, the lesser of two evils. For Israel to govern Gaza, which had only around 8,500 Jewish settlers, the Israelis ran the risk of becoming a hostile occupying force with little or no local legitimacy. Using powerful force to respond to concerted attacks from Gaza after pulling out was the better alternative. Once Hamas took over Gaza in 2007, it quickly initiated military attacks on Israel in 2008, 2012, and 2014, with large losses of life on all sides.

In this instance, as in all others, it is inappropriate to posit moral and legal parity between the two sides. In all cases, Hamas was the aggressor. It is a moral blunder to equate Israel’s targeted self-defense with Hamas’s aggression. To be sure, in practice there are often complex ethics that challenge the imagination, but the key to understanding Gaza is to avoid the mistake of assuming that any balance in the number of deaths and casualties offers evidence of moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas. As Bret Stephens recently wrote in the New York Times, the moral imbalance between Israel and Hamas looms as a huge obstacle to any two-state solution in the Middle East.

So long as Hamas is active, the Israelis cannot afford to deploy the same strategy of calculated withdrawal on the West Bank that they used fitfully in Gaza. Gaza can be isolated by land and sea. The West Bank, however, borders Jordan, through which other Israeli enemies like Iran and Syria can easily set up hostile military positions close to both Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.

The current round of rocket attacks from Hamas quickly led to additional violence inside Israel itself. In dealing with these disputes, it is easy to forget the consistent pattern of Hamas and Palestinian aggression, and instead simply plead for the violence to stop, with no moral judgments either way. Unfortunately, the US Department of State did just that in its response: “There is no excuse for violence, but such bloodshed is especially disturbing now, coming as it does on the last days of Ramadan.” The reference to violence on Ramadan at the Al-Aqsa Mosque on the corner of the Temple Mount regrettably misstates the relevant issues, given that Palestinians had stockpiled rocks to initiate violence, to which the Israeli police then responded with stun grenades. It should be especially disturbing that Palestinian youths used the holy month of Ramadan to launch military attacks. But sadly, the State Department critique makes it appear as if the Israelis had engaged in an unprovoked use of force at that sensitive location, which in turn precipitated further denunciations of Israel by key Arab nations.

The State Department then gave a further boost to the Palestinian position by urging “authorities to approach the residents of Sheikh Jarrah [in East Jerusalem] with compassion and respect, and consider the totality of these complex historical cases and how they impact real lives today.” At no point does this statement give any indication as to the source of the Sheikh Jarrah quarrel in question.

This editorializing was even more one-sided in the press. Nicholas Kristof wrote in the New York Times that the “recent fighting was prompted in part by Israel’s latest land grab in East Jerusalem, part of a pattern of unequal treatment of Palestinians,” which led to his recommendation that the United States condition its military aid to Israel “on reducing conflict, rather than aggravating it,” without ever saying how that could be done.

Kristof’s reporting suggests the Israelis had evicted Palestinians from their ancestral homes by brute force to expand the Jewish footprint in East Jerusalem. But, to the extent the current conflict involves eviction, it is in the context of a highly charged landlord-tenant dispute. As reported more fully by Steve Postal in the American Spectator, the land in question had already been purchased by Jewish communities in 1875 from its Arab owners and registered in the name of two Jewish rabbis at the time of purchase. Jordan took the land by force during the 1948 War of Independence; however, the land was reregistered in 1973 after Israel retook East Jerusalem in the 1967 war. From then on, the land was rented out to Palestinians on condition that they pay rent—when the rental payments ceased starting in 1993, the Israelis sent eviction notices. By 2021, an Israeli court allowed the evictions to take place if the nonpayment of rent did not end—hardly a novel innovation in landlord-tenant law. And the entire matter is now going before the Supreme Court of Israel.

Calling this train of events a “land grab” is an inexcusable travesty, and in no way provides a casus belli to Hamas or other Palestinians that justifies the use of deadly force. Yet Kristof, among others, compounds the error by downplaying that the attacked locations had “a Hamas presence”—i.e., their main headquarters—and doesn’t bother to note that the Israeli attacks were in response to the launch of about a thousand rockets into Israeli territory, many of which reached the suburbs of Tel Aviv, resulting in casualties and serious property damage.

So much of the battle between Israeli and Palestinian interests depends on who can take the high ground in the moral debate. On the merits, this case should be easy. In this instance, there was no provocation for the Hamas attacks. And it is furthermore mistaken to criticize the Israeli response as being a form of “racist nationalism,” as did Senator Bernie Sanders. Such mischaracterizations only work to strengthen the misguided arguments of moral equivalence between indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations and targeted efforts of self-defense. The Israelis are trying to cope with an adversary in Hamas that is willing to use its own people as human shields to protect missile installations from counterattack, installations that are often located in hospitals and schools.

These tactics are difficult to overcome. The law of self-defense countenances the use of all feasible measures to avoid collateral damage on civilians. But by the same token, the cautionary warning against civilian casualties cannot be read so broadly as to allow Hamas to fire on Israel so long as it is willing to dragoon its own citizens into a position of peril. In dealing with these situations, it is unwise and mistaken to criticize Israeli tactical mistakes—of which there will be some—while overlooking the inexcusable use of indiscriminate and deadly force that provoked Israel’s use of force.

It is also important not to fall into the trap of thinking that the wrongs of Hamas and the Palestinians today are excused in light of past Jewish misdeeds. Peter Beinart, writing in the New York Times, advises that “Jews should understand” that crimes of the past do not remain in the past, and argues that past wrongdoing supports a Palestinian right to return to Israel. Yet this line of thinking is hopelessly one-sided, as it does not address the long history of Arab criminal aggression that started even before the Arab invasion of the new state of Israel in 1948, violence that has continued ever since. Hundreds of thousands of Jews have been forced out of their homelands in other Middle Eastern countries and are now in Israel, making a return for them neither possible nor desirable.

Beinart insists that if Jews can build houses for Russian immigrants, they can do the same for Palestinians, ignoring what sworn enemies of Israel will do once admitted to Israel in large numbers. His “modest” proposal could end the Jewish state as we know it, given the massive shifts that it would augur in political and military power.

Letting claims of past injustices fuel current acts of violence will only expand the list of unsettled grievances, producing never-ending rounds of violence. There is a better way. It depends on starting to build trust between Arabs and Israelis through low-level business and social interactions. Such ground-level social cohesion is the only hope of ending the senseless cycle of Middle East violence. Sadly, by continuing to advance the false narrative of moral equivalence, the Biden administration’s position serves only to perpetuate the chronic violence in the Middle East.

© 2021 by the Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University.

Published in Foreign Policy, Islamist Terrorism
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 43 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. RushBabe49 Thatcher
    RushBabe49
    @RushBabe49

    Yes. Thank you. 

    • #1
  2. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    Just as white supremacy is the greatest threat to the U.S., according to the Democratic Party and its lapdog media, so Israel is the main threat to peace in the Middle East.

    Trump’s Middle East policies succeeded where Obama’s failed because his goal actually was peace — while Obama’s goal was to use the threat of war to extort concessions from Israel.

    • #2
  3. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Amen

    • #3
  4. Quickz Member
    Quickz
    @Quickz

    Thank you for reminding me of the history – how easily I forget.

    • #4
  5. Doctor Robert Member
    Doctor Robert
    @DoctorRobert

    No. No. No.

    Hamas and the Western left have no interest in settling this peaceably.  Their goal is annihilation of Israel and its citizens.

    Israel’s only successful strategy would be to repay violence with overwhelming force, to destroy the Hamas and thus remove other Palestinians’ will to fight.  History teaches us that only overwhelming destruction can stop an implacable enemy.  Think Sherman in 1863.  Think Scipio at Carthage.  Think Truman and Japan.

    So long as Israel seeks to “build trust between Arabs and Israelis through low-level business and social interactions”, they remain vulnerable to the next hot-headed Hamas believer with a rocket launcher or a suicide vest.

    • #5
  6. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    So Hamas is the aggressor.  That is true, from a certain point of view.  It is similar to the point of view that would consider El Cid to have been the aggressor.

    • #6
  7. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Richard Epstein:

    …the land in question had already been purchased by Jewish communities in 1875 from its Arab owners and registered in the name of two Jewish rabbis at the time of purchase. Jordan took the land by force during the 1948 War of Independence; however, the land was reregistered in 1973 after Israel retook East Jerusalem in the 1967 war.

    After all, if such a situation existed in reverse in West Jerusalem surely the original Arab owners could reregister their property and charge the Jewish residents rent.

    Amirite?

    Edited to add:

    Spoiler alert: they could not.

    • #7
  8. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    So Hamas is the aggressor. That is true, from a certain point of view. It is similar to the point of view that would consider El Cid to have been the aggressor.

    No. They are the terrorists, who’s swore goal is the extermination of Israel and the Jews in Israel. 

    “A certain point of view” is a vile way to put it. 

    • #8
  9. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Hmmmm:

    In the biggest concession, the new document states that Hamas “considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of 4 June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus”.

    • #9
  10. Paul Stinchfield Member
    Paul Stinchfield
    @PaulStinchfield

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    So Hamas is the aggressor. That is true, from a certain point of view. It is similar to the point of view that would consider El Cid to have been the aggressor.

    El Cid was fighting to expel the Muslim invaders.

    • #10
  11. Paul Stinchfield Member
    Paul Stinchfield
    @PaulStinchfield

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Hmmmm:

    In the biggest concession, the new document states that Hamas “considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of 4 June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus”.

    Genocidal Islamic fascists suddenly are willing to live in peace with Jews? Not credible. But note that they demand that Israel withdraw to the much less defensible pre-1967 borders. Extracting concessions to make Israel more vulnerable to a later war of annihilation is what that is about.

    • #11
  12. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    Paul Stinchfield (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Hmmmm:

    In the biggest concession, the new document states that Hamas “considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of 4 June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus”.

    Genocidal Islamic fascists suddenly are willing to live in peace with Jews? Not credible. But note that they demand that Israel withdraw to the much less defensible pre-1967 borders. Extracting concessions to make Israel more vulnerable to a later war of annihilation is what that is about.

    In the past, Israel has shown a dangerous tendency to trade land for bits of paper; that is, something real for empty promises.

    • #12
  13. Paul Stinchfield Member
    Paul Stinchfield
    @PaulStinchfield

    Taras (View Comment):

    Paul Stinchfield (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Hmmmm:

    In the biggest concession, the new document states that Hamas “considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of 4 June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus”.

    Genocidal Islamic fascists suddenly are willing to live in peace with Jews? Not credible. But note that they demand that Israel withdraw to the much less defensible pre-1967 borders. Extracting concessions to make Israel more vulnerable to a later war of annihilation is what that is about.

    In the past, Israel has shown a dangerous tendency to trade land for bits of paper; that is, something real for empty promises.

    And Muslims have a tendency to treat peace treaties as merely temporary truces, to be broken when circumstances favor a resumption of jihad.

    • #13
  14. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    Paul Stinchfield (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    Paul Stinchfield (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Hmmmm:

    In the biggest concession, the new document states that Hamas “considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of 4 June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus”.

    Genocidal Islamic fascists suddenly are willing to live in peace with Jews? Not credible. But note that they demand that Israel withdraw to the much less defensible pre-1967 borders. Extracting concessions to make Israel more vulnerable to a later war of annihilation is what that is about.

    In the past, Israel has shown a dangerous tendency to trade land for bits of paper; that is, something real for empty promises.

    And Muslims have a tendency to treat peace treaties as merely temporary truces, to be broken when circumstances favor a resumption of jihad.

    It’s more like a religious obligation than a tendency.

    See:  https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/taqiyya.aspx

    • #14
  15. Paul Stinchfield Member
    Paul Stinchfield
    @PaulStinchfield

    Taras (View Comment):

    Paul Stinchfield (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    Paul Stinchfield (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Hmmmm:

    In the biggest concession, the new document states that Hamas “considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of 4 June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus”.

    Genocidal Islamic fascists suddenly are willing to live in peace with Jews? Not credible. But note that they demand that Israel withdraw to the much less defensible pre-1967 borders. Extracting concessions to make Israel more vulnerable to a later war of annihilation is what that is about.

    In the past, Israel has shown a dangerous tendency to trade land for bits of paper; that is, something real for empty promises.

    And Muslims have a tendency to treat peace treaties as merely temporary truces, to be broken when circumstances favor a resumption of jihad.

    It’s more like a religious obligation than a tendency.

    See: https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/taqiyya.aspx

    Zafar pretending that Hamas genuinely wants peace is an excellent example of taqiyya.

    • #15
  16. RushBabe49 Thatcher
    RushBabe49
    @RushBabe49

    Hamas does want peace.  However, their definition of “peace” is different from Israel’s definition.  For that matter, Islam’s definition of “peace” is different from everyone else’s definition.

    • #16
  17. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Paul Stinchfield (View Comment):
    Genocidal Islamic fascists suddenly are willing to live in peace with Jews? Not credible. But note that they demand that Israel withdraw to the much less defensible pre-1967 borders. Extracting concessions to make Israel more vulnerable to a later war of annihilation is what that is about.

    Sorry, Abraham Accords, you mean nothing :-(

    • #17
  18. Paul Stinchfield Member
    Paul Stinchfield
    @PaulStinchfield

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    Hamas does want peace. However, their definition of “peace” is different from Israel’s definition. For that matter, Islam’s definition of “peace” is different from everyone else’s definition.

    No sensible person wants to live under Muslim rule. Dhimmi status is damned bad.

    • #18
  19. Paul Stinchfield Member
    Paul Stinchfield
    @PaulStinchfield

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Paul Stinchfield (View Comment):
    Genocidal Islamic fascists suddenly are willing to live in peace with Jews? Not credible. But note that they demand that Israel withdraw to the much less defensible pre-1967 borders. Extracting concessions to make Israel more vulnerable to a later war of annihilation is what that is about.

    Sorry, Abraham Accords, you mean nothing :-(

    The Abraham Accords do not mandate that Israel withdraw to pre-1967 boundaries.

    • #19
  20. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Paul Stinchfield (View Comment):
    The Abraham Accords do not mandate that Israel withdraw to pre-1967 boundaries.

    Still signed with Muslims. Who knows what their plan is.

    • #20
  21. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Paul Stinchfield (View Comment):
    The Abraham Accords do not mandate that Israel withdraw to pre-1967 boundaries.

    Still signed with Muslims. Who knows what their plan is.

    The same plan they always have: Gain power, follow the teachings of their Holy Book.

     

     

    • #21
  22. Paul Stinchfield Member
    Paul Stinchfield
    @PaulStinchfield

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Paul Stinchfield (View Comment):
    The Abraham Accords do not mandate that Israel withdraw to pre-1967 boundaries.

    Still signed with Muslims. Who knows what their plan is.

    The same plan they always have: Gain power, follow the teachings of their Holy Book.

    Hard to say, but the signers of the Abraham Accords have not made withdrawal to pre-1967 borders a condition of peace.

    Zafar has–surprise!–dropped discussion of Hamas and its fake claim of wanting peace, as we did not prove to be sufficiently naive to accept his garbage claim.

    • #22
  23. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Paul Stinchfield (View Comment):
    The Abraham Accords do not mandate that Israel withdraw to pre-1967 boundaries.

    Still signed with Muslims. Who knows what their plan is.

    The same plan they always have: Gain power, follow the teachings of their Holy Book.

    I liked my clip better. 

    • #23
  24. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Paul Stinchfield (View Comment):

    Hard to say, but the signers of the Abraham Accords have not made withdrawal to pre-1967 borders a condition of peace.

    No, they wanted things like recognition of a claim to Western Sahara or being removed from lists of state sponsors of terror. Which they got. From the US.

    Zafar has–surprise!–dropped discussion of Hamas and its fake claim of wanting peace, as we did not prove to be sufficiently naive to accept his garbage claim.

    I think it does want peace, but as has been said before, what peace looks like depends on whom you ask. Killing Jews is not Hamas’ goal, it is a tactic. It’s goal is for Palestinian refugees to return home. 

    • #24
  25. Paul Stinchfield Member
    Paul Stinchfield
    @PaulStinchfield

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Paul Stinchfield (View Comment):

    Hard to say, but the signers of the Abraham Accords have not made withdrawal to pre-1967 borders a condition of peace.

    No, they wanted things like recognition of a claim to Western Sahara or being removed from lists of state sponsors of terror. Which they got. From the US.

    Zafar has–surprise!–dropped discussion of Hamas and its fake claim of wanting peace, as we did not prove to be sufficiently naive to accept his garbage claim.

    I think it does want peace, but as has been said before, what peace looks like depends on whom you ask. Killing Jews is not Hamas’ goal, it is a tactic. It’s goal is for Palestinian refugees to return home.

    Liar. You show yourself to be a mouthpiece for Islamic fascists, and your pretense of moderation is just that, a pretense.

    • #25
  26. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Paul Stinchfield (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Paul Stinchfield (View Comment):

    Hard to say, but the signers of the Abraham Accords have not made withdrawal to pre-1967 borders a condition of peace.

    No, they wanted things like recognition of a claim to Western Sahara or being removed from lists of state sponsors of terror. Which they got. From the US.

    Zafar has–surprise!–dropped discussion of Hamas and its fake claim of wanting peace, as we did not prove to be sufficiently naive to accept his garbage claim.

    I think it does want peace, but as has been said before, what peace looks like depends on whom you ask. Killing Jews is not Hamas’ goal, it is a tactic. It’s goal is for Palestinian refugees to return home.

    Liar. You show yourself to be a mouthpiece for Islamic fascists, and your pretense of moderation is just that, a pretense.

    *eye roll*

    • #26
  27. Paul Stinchfield Member
    Paul Stinchfield
    @PaulStinchfield

    “Hamas, Hamas!  Jews to the gas!” is the true face of Hamas and their ilk.

    • #27
  28. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    Paul Stinchfield (View Comment):

    “Hamas, Hamas! Jews to the gas!” is the true face of Hamas and their ilk.

    “Police are looking into footage of soccer fans in the Netherlands chanting ‘Hamas, Hamas, Jews on the gas,’ ahead of a match against a team known for attracting Jewish supporters.” — https://www.newsweek.com/hamas-hamas-jews-gas-dutch-police-investigating-anti-semitic-chant-ahead-soccer-game-1585469

    “People of Jerusalem, we want you to cut off the heads of the Jews with knives. With your hand, cut their artery from here,” Fathi Hammad, Hamas Political Bureau member and former interior minister, says in the clip, which was translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute.

    “A knife costs five shekels [about $1.50]. Buy a knife, sharpen it, put it there, and just cut off [their heads]. It costs just five shekels. With those five shekels, you will humiliate the Jewish state,” he said.

    “The Jews have spread corruption and acted with arrogance, and their moment of reckoning has come. The moment of destruction at your hands has arrived,” Hammad added. — https://nypost.com/2021/05/12/hamas-official-tells-people-to-cut-off-the-heads-of-jews-report/

    • #28
  29. Paul Stinchfield Member
    Paul Stinchfield
    @PaulStinchfield

    Taras (View Comment):

    Paul Stinchfield (View Comment):

    “Hamas, Hamas! Jews to the gas!” is the true face of Hamas and their ilk.

    “Police are looking into footage of soccer fans in the Netherlands chanting ‘Hamas, Hamas, Jews on the gas,’ ahead of a match against a team known for attracting Jewish supporters.” — https://www.newsweek.com/hamas-hamas-jews-gas-dutch-police-investigating-anti-semitic-chant-ahead-soccer-game-1585469

    “People of Jerusalem, we want you to cut off the heads of the Jews with knives. With your hand, cut their artery from here,” Fathi Hammad, Hamas Political Bureau member and former interior minister, says in the clip, which was translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute.

    “A knife costs five shekels [about $1.50]. Buy a knife, sharpen it, put it there, and just cut off [their heads]. It costs just five shekels. With those five shekels, you will humiliate the Jewish state,” he said.

    “The Jews have spread corruption and acted with arrogance, and their moment of reckoning has come. The moment of destruction at your hands has arrived,” Hammad added. — https://nypost.com/2021/05/12/hamas-official-tells-people-to-cut-off-the-heads-of-jews-report/

    MEMRI is an excellent source of information.

    • #29
  30. Paul Stinchfield Member
    Paul Stinchfield
    @PaulStinchfield

    Bat Ye’or has written a number of scholarly books on the treatment of Christians under Muslim rule. Among them:

    The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam, 1985
    The Decline of Eastern Christianity: From Jihad to Dhimmitude, 1996
    Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide, 2001
    Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, 2005
    Understanding Dhimmitude, 2013

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.