What to do about Gaza?

August 17, 2025 • 9:30 am

A couple of weeks ago I got the following email from a colleague whom I deeply respected and was friends with for years:

Greetings, Jerry,
Regretfully, I ask that you unsubscribe me from WEIT.
You often include interesting and even delightful information, but I strongly disagree with the position you advocate, at length and incessantly, on Gaza and Israel’s actions.
You have been a good professional colleague, and have made major contributions that I will probably have occasion to cite in the future. I regret having to break with you over this issue.

Of course this was a blow, and, although I still support Israel in the conflict and think the media constantly exaggerates the situation in favor of Hamas, and although I also unequivocally reject the claim that Israel is committing genocide, when I get something like this email I always ponder what truth, if any, there is in it.  Have I been too sympathetic to Israel and neglected any bad actions they’ve performed?

I am not only revealing my dubts and ruminations, but also using them to ask a question of readers, given is in bold below.

My constant questioning of my views and sympathies center on these four questions:

1.)  Is Israel withholding food from Gazans, leading to civilian starvation?  I haven’t written about this simply because I haven’t seen enough evidence one way or the other. My sympathy for Israel has made me think that they are—despite the earlier “pause” on aid—now allowing sufficient food into Gaza, and that it is simply being hijacked by Hamas and either kept for terrorists or put on the black market at inflated prices. Israel says there is sufficient food going in, but the rest of the world says no, there isn’t. Perhaps the rest of the world might be ignorant, and it’s for sure that the UN isn’t helping. Further, it’s unprecedented that one country (Israel) is expected to feed another while they are still at war.  But they are, though they get no credit for it.  Once the war is over, though, I think Israel has the responsibility to take care of the people of Gaza until the IDF withdraws completely from the country. But the war isn’t yet over. And there have been credible videos of Hams (or armed and masked thugs) hijacking food trucks.

2.)  Is Israel really shooting Gazans who are trying to get food at distribution centers?  This I don’t believe, simply because it would be the worst possible optics for the IDF to kill Gazan civilians. So far I have not seen any video of this happening, but I keep looking.

3.) Does Israel have a credible plan for the end of the war?  If they do, I haven’t heard of it. Things are changing rapidly. The IDF did conduct the beginning of the war in a way that, I thought, was well planned, but now there seems to be no military endgame, save to keep bombing members of Hamas, something that now often involves substantial deaths of nearby innocent people.  And what plans are adumbrated still change rapidly. On one day Gazan civilians are supposed to relocate elsewhere, like the Sinai; on the next day Israel says it will occupy Gaza City for the indefinite future, and so on. In this form of urban guerrilla warfare, it seems unlikely that Israel can destroy every member of Hamas, and the terrorists seem unlikely to surrender so long as any are still alive, though I think the organization must surrender and disarm the war is to end. Israel cannot accept any less.

4.) What about the hostages?  It is not in Hamas’s interest to release all the hostages, for that is the only card they’re holding that will make Israel negotiate for a cease-fire.  Yet the retention of the hostages has turned many Israelis (though not the world, which doesn’t seem to care much about the hostages) against their government.

Thus the two aims of the IDF at the beginning of the war—the destruction of Hamas and the release of all the hostages—seem not only impossible, but incompatible. And yet I have always believed, and still believe, that these things need to be done if Israel is to continue existing.

Nor do I see any viable two-state solution: Israel doesn’t want one for clear and obvious reasons, and neither does Palestine.  My hope that a third party, like the United Arab Emirates, could take over and supervise the reconstruction of Gaza is a hope that seems doomed. No other Arab country wants to step in here

My dilemmas, then, are that there seems to be no “day after” plan, that a lot of Gazans are being killed (even though as a byproduct of Hamas’s policy of embedding itself among civilians), and that a lot of Gaza has been destroyed.  Yet Hamas seems unlikely to surrender. As for the hostages—and this will sound callous to hear—I regarded them all as doomed right after October 7, though of course I’d be elated for them to all return home, and I get furious every time one is killed, or a dead body is released in swaps. (Why doesn’t the world care, for instance, that the Bibas family was killed–strangled–by Hamas?)  But should we allow Hamas to remain in power just so some hostages will be released? Do realize that Hamas will never release all living hostages: if they do anything, they will release some living hostages and kill the rest without telling Israel.

So, here is my question for readers:

If you were Israel’s PM (you can go after Netanyahu if you want, though that’s rather irrelevant here), what plan of action would you devise to end the war?

This is the question I would ask anyone who says Israel is behaving badly, like my erstwhile friend and colleague above. I have not heard a credible answer save the inevitable and futile “two-state solution.” But anybody who knows anything about Hamas and the Palestinian Authority knows that the two-state “solution” would not mean the end of anti-Israel terrorism. Those countries that recognize Palestine as a state, like France and the UK, are simply stupid if they think that this recognition will create a real state of Palestine and thereby end terrorism against Israel. And do they not know that Hamas hates the Palestinian Authority and would not co-govern any state as partners?

Anybody who follows this conflict must realize that there are many accusations against Israel that are simply false or undocumented and, in my view, criticisms of Hamas have dwindled to nearly zero—comprising at most a caveat in some news reports that “Yes, we realize that Hamas were terrorists and the acts of October 7 were reprehensible.”  But do you hear now that Hamas are still keeping hostages, killing them, and starving them? That they have committed war crimes repeatedly and continue to do so?

But I digress. Please dilate on the question above, and if you think there’s a viable solution, please give it.

135 thoughts on “What to do about Gaza?”

  1. You are one of the few sources that I can trust for a balanced and well reasoned opinion on the situation in Gaza. Your friend and colleague seems to lack your ability to keep an open mind. Please keep up the good work, it is appreciated.

    1. I agree except for the part assuming what someone is all about. That’s a two-way street… or something…

      … sets up bitter conditions…?

      Let friends be wrong

      -Attributed to Thomas Jefferson

  2. There isn’t always a solution to problems. In this case, the Palestinians in Gaza are dedicated to the total extermination of not just Israelis, but all Jews, everywhere. Pro-Gaza types relentlessly fail to deal with this point. It puts the Israelis in an awful position, which is the point of Hamas: By being so utterly committed, even to self-destruction, to the butchering of every Jew anywhere in the world, but especially Israelis, Israelis have to act in self-defence but it prevents them from being reasonably generous without also being self-destructive.

    No solution but the extermination of every Jew alive will satisfy the Gazan population at large, but especially Hamas. It’s hard to negotiate with that.

    Not many solutions present themselves. The best that might be achieved might be a tacit “peace”, enforced brutally through massive reprisals, which instill fear.

    Anyone who has a solution needs to consider the reality on the ground, because almost all solutions are meaningless unless they account for facts.

    2. Thank you. I came here to make this point too.

      The Hamas Covenant makes this very clear. In the opening paragraph it quotes the Koran about the Arabs being god’s chosen people and how others must capitulate to them and something about the Jews that “slew the prophets unjustly.”

      And the very next line is: “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.”

      The tiny paragraph on “Characteristics and Independence” wants only to “raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine”. Hamas (and, let’s be honest, the rest of the Arab world too) wants the destruction of Israel for religious reasons. There’s no reference to expulsions, right of return, or refugees anywhere in the document.

      Yet in the eyes of Jerry’s friend, Israel is the bad guy. Israel must do all the work to solve the problem. Israel brought all of this upon themselves. I’m not the sentimental type. I’ve formally ditched two friends for having this debased slant on reality and there are several others I simply don’t take seriously anymore.

    3. Yes, this is the dismal place where I’ve landed. I tried for many years to understand and sympathize with the citizens of Gaza, but could never shake the fact that peace was there for the taking by simply not attacking Israel. Gazans have oppressed themselves and secured their oppression by supporting Hamas (who of course rules with brutality against their own people). Israel has no good options.

    4. It has been a long time since I’ve checked, but I think the declaration of principles or the charter or whatever about extermination of all Jews was from the original document. But then some years later a ‘softer, kinder’ charter was released that said that Jews might be allowed remain in Palestine.
      Now I know quite well that the original document is closer to the truth, at least in regards to Jews between the river and the sea. And it’s’ not Israelis. Its Jews. The animosity comes from oldest fountain of rabid anti-Semitism.

      1. The 2017 charter removed explicit antisemitic rhetoric and had less fire and brimstone but it did not fundamentally alter Hamas’s long-term objectives or its stance on Israel. There’s talk of returning to 1967 borders as being a transitional phase but the ultimate goal remains the “liberation of all of Palestine” .

        Softener language indeed but the core objectives of Hamas, including the non-recognition of Israel and the commitment to armed struggle, remain. It’s just a change in tone, not ideology.

        1. At the very least, I would continue the war for as long as there are living hostages. After that, I would focus on 1) containment 2) smitten any attempt of Hamas or any other Israel hating group to form any kind of organized government.

          After that, it is the palestinian people’s responsibility to eventually abandon their desire to erase Israel, and the moment an organized group arises within Palestine that could take over (and does not want to eliminate Israel), Israel should support them.

      2. ISTM the oldest mass fountain of rabid anti-Semitism is Christian, not Islamic. Not that that excuses any of the others.

        1. Yet the Easter sermons about the Jews being Christ-killers and the pogroms that followed are a thing of the past (the pogroms, not the sermons). What motivated Jews to migrate to Israel during the Zionist era was exactly that.

          While antisemitism is still around in all its forms and in every worldly nook and cranny, it’s only really the Muslim nooks and crannies where a real and existential threat to Jews and Israel still exists.

          The above statement, while not untrue, I might paraphrase like this: ISTM the oldest mass fountain of tulips was in central Asia, not Holland.

          1. True indeed. And I fully agree that the current source of virulent antisemitism is Islamists.
            (The Muslims I have known personally have definitely not been Islamists.)

        2. Seems that replies are limited to 3 deep so I’m replying to your last reply to me here.

          True indeed. And I fully agree that the current source of virulent antisemitism is Islamists.
          (The Muslims I have known personally have definitely not been Islamists.)

          Antisemitism is pervasive among Christians with no special branch or especially “political Christianity” guilty of it in the same way that antisemitism is pervasive among Muslims and trying the “no true Scotsman” on Muslims in general holds no water. It’s not confined to phantom “Islamists” who get the blame for everything but are somehow never available for questioning.

          Even Mehdi Hassan, a true pro-Gazan motormouth, wrote in 2013 that antisemitism is the “dirty little secret” of Muslims. It’s not Islamists. And he was talking about Muslims in the UK so we can extrapolate what it’s like in the backwaters of the “Islamist” world.

          Don’t ask your Muslim friends if they hate Jews because that’s begging the question. Rather ask them about their family and their community. Ask them about their Mosque. Ask them if the topic ever comes up around the dinner table or at family gatherings. Ask them if there’s any smidgen of support for Israel to be found in any corner of their communities or the Muslim world as there is support for Jews and Israel in many parts of the Christian world.

          I already know the answers to all these questions as I’ve asked them ad nauseum of Muslim friends and acquaintances. Mostly when I lived in Holland through the years of the second intifada but also where I live now in Spain.

          I chose the word well when I wrote:

          it’s only really the Muslim nooks and crannies where a real and existential threat to Jews and Israel still exists.

          I could have used Islamic or even Islamist. But I know this to be untrue from many years of asking easy questions and having easy answers roll off the tongues of people who are not Islamists.

        3. How many Jews did Jesus slaughter? Mohammad slaughtered some 800 Jews. It set a precedent.

          Roman antisemitism preceded their adoption of Christianity. Hadrian was no Christian.

  3. Hamas must be destroyed militarily. Anything short of that will extend terrorism against Israel and the Jewish people. The Palestinians have demonstrated they do not want peace and their leadership doesn’t care about their own people. Israel’s security must be secured. Only after that is accomplished should the Palestinian cause be considered. And that should be determined by Middle Eastern countries.

  4. I’m so sorry to hear about your colleague. I think it is more of a symptom of current trends rather than who’s actually right or wrong. Generally speaking, people seem prefer to be in their own bubbles rather than be exposed to opposing view points. I’ve come across this quite often myself. I have a friend in my knitting group who only speaks to me minimally because I don’t believe in astrology. (She baffles me because she studied biology and works in a hospital lab). I’ve also myself felt the inclination to unfollow people who have viewpoints that challenge my own, but then sometime I stick it out. It’s more interesting that way. For example, Maureen Callahan has a gossip/culture YouTube channel and can’t stand Bill Maher because he’s a misogynist. But I listen to her anyway. She points out things I seem to be blind to. But I still listen to Bill Maher too. I know these examples are not like academic life, but I think people are facing them everyday in very ordinary ways. To tune out the views you just don’t agree with is, in my opinion, a sign of underdeveloped emotional and even intellectual intelligence. It’s painful nonetheless and I’m sorry you are going through this.
    Take care,
    Amy

  5. “Further, it’s unprecedented that one country (Israel) is expected to feed another while they are still at war.”

    I think the responsibility is not to feed another country, but to avoid preventing innocent civilians in that country from receiving food aid.

    1. “but to avoid preventing innocent civilians in that country from receiving food aid”

      But what exactly does this mean. Is it enough that sufficient calories flow across the border, or line of control? Or, at the opposite extreme, is Israel expected to ensure that each family gets enough?

      If enough food crosses the border, but it’s all immediately stolen by armed groups who wish to buy allegiance with it… what should happen? Or worse, it it’s stolen by armed groups who prefer the PR value of actual starvation over feeding “their” people… what should happen?

      My limited understanding is that these are roughly what’s going on. Nobody can just drive in and distribute food geographically. Painting the truck UN blue means nothing. An israeli driving in will simply be shot or captured. Any local who can safely drive around must surely obey whichever armed group his family lives under. Attempting to hire neutral mercenaries to set up distribution sites at a safe distance (safe for them!) doesn’t seem to be working well either? Although it’s very hard to tell. But it’s easy to predict that an armed group pursuing either of the above strategies can easily frustrate any attempt.

      I am very glad not to be Israel’s PM, as I don’t see a way out. Hamas’s strategy seems perfectly designed to put any civilised country in a sort-of checkmate.

      There have been many opponents against which Hamas’s strategy would not have worked at all. And not just Stalin… anyone think Mr. Abiy (the ethiopian president, with a nobel peach prize) would have blinked if the Tigray rebels tried the starve-our-own-people strategy?

  6. Thank you for addressing this issue. It has weighed on me almost day and night since Oct 7….or at least since it seemed the world and certainly it seemed that U.S. uni students and faculty demonstrably turned against Israel a few days later.

    I am a secular Jew having been raised with all the trappings of the 5000 year history of the Jewish people and, given that history, I support a homeland for the Jewish people. I think that the 1948 boundaries include the Negev give or take that came from the British Mandate are about right. I believe that they are a basis for two-state. The West Bank lands conquered in the 67 war should be returned…ie all settlers in areas A, B, and C need to leave as they did from Gaza. The haredi or orthodox sects have no claim on Judea or Samaria…they need to simply appreciate and contribute to an Israeli Jewish Homeland including service in the IDF. The Netanyahu government can start by showing zero tolerance for Settler violence. I do think that some of the Golan heights need to stay with Israel.

    As a result, military vigilance along the Gaza and West Bank borders and walls will need to be stepped up and any rockets launched from the pali territories should be met with immediate retaliation from Israel to their point of origin. I have no idea what this does to trade and commerce between the teritories and Israel and I am sure that I have erred on the exact borders a bit, but still believe that both the Jewish people and the Palestinians have legitimate claims to settle these ancient lands. Israel has taken scrub rock and desert and created a modern technological and democratic nation. The Palistinians should be able to do the same…if they have the political will.

    So those be my naive thoughts….

    1. If Gaza becomes part of a Palestinian state, as you presume, then you know that there will be rockets fired into Israel from Gaza (a war crime). Your solution? Israel should just retaliate by destroying the rocket launchers. But, as you know, those launchers are embedded among civilians, and so there is no possibility of retaliation without killing civilians. And you know what that means, of course. The world starts hating Israel for simply retaliating, because it kills civilians. I don’t think you fathom Hamas’s strategy: they do not care of their civilians die so long as it hurts Israel.

      1. No. I get it. But I think that immediate retaliation…the launchers and terrorist minders are long gone…to the corrdinates from which the rockets came is the best that Israel can do. Yep civilians are killed per Hamas strategy unless they vacate immediately also. At least this tit for tat cannot be called mass genocide…simply proportional retaliation. As Craig said above, sometimes there aren’t solutions…but Israel can work on the status quo to change world opinion…retaliate immediately to origins and stop the damn settlers.

        Oh and certainly the West Bank will also launch and they should be similarly met. The West Bank being an even bigger strategic problem in that they are the high ground overlooking pretty much all of Israel.

        1. I think that identifying launch points is easy, after launch. Iron dome probably knows every one of them already.

          You could promise to hit every one with bomb. If it’s a small bomb, all you will destroy is some bits of 2×4 forming the improvised launcher. They have wires, and timers.

          You could instead promise to flatten (say) a 50m radius around every one, one city block. You might incentivize locals to prevent the use of their basements. But more likely, soon Gaza will look like today. I think Hamas regard this as a price well worth paying.

          (The area of gaza city is 45 square km. If you flatten a 100m square each time, then it takes 4500 such events to flatten the whole city. 2014 and 2021 each had about that many launches. 2023 had over 7000.)

        2. Has there ever been a war or conflict in history where retaliation for aggression was proportional? I cannot think of one.

          1. Some are arguably proportional responses. We have dropped things on Iran in response to some provocations, for example. Proportional responses are not done to start an ongoing war. They are done to show a willingness to respond to the adversary and to the world.

      2. Just a note on rocket launchers to be destroyed in retaliation. These rockets are essentially self-launching, sometimes needing a rail fashioned from angle iron or rebar salvaged from wrecked buildings to start it going in roughly the right direction. There is no “launcher” to be destroyed preventing a re-load the way there is with artillery and mortars. The tube we see an infantryman firing a Stinger or Javelin from is just Fiber-Glas to protect the rocket from damage during handling, provide an aiming/targeting system, and crucially a system of interlocks to prevent it being fired accidentally. The tube is discarded after the rocket is launched because it is too damaged by the blast to be reloaded and costs a tiny fraction of what the rocket itself did. It’s now just dead weight and bulk for a soldier to carry.

        Even flattening the whole neighbourhood where a jihadist rocket came from doesn’t prevent the enemy from lugging another rocket into the rubble and having another go, then disappearing into the handy tunnel to evade the counterstrike. Grimly, the only suppression of rocket fire comes from killing the people who make the rockets and learn how to launch them, with emphasis on the former category. This is what will still happen if there is a Palestinian state.

    2. ” I think that the 1948 boundaries include the Negev give or take that came from the British Mandate are about right. ”

      “The West Bank lands conquered in the 67 war should be returned…”

      These two statements are contradictory. The 1948 borders of Israel under International law include Judea and Samaria (what Jordan named “The West Bank”, a term I try not to use). Jordan temporarily occupied them from 1948 – 1967 after an illegal war of aggression. They have since renounced all claims to sovereignty to this area after a peace treaty with Israel.

      If you can name a single instance of territory taken by an illegal war of aggression that the UN or any other legitimate body recognizes as properly belonging to the aggressor – any instance which does not involve Israel (!) – I will eat my hat.

  7. I think your colleague’s note is symptomatic of the current trend: people do not like what is portrayed re. Israel (and much else) and rather than actually attempt to understand and analyze the situation constructively they signpost in order to maintain a semblance of righteousness. I too ask myself daily: what am I missing? Is Israel really the bad guy in all of this?Why are so many taking the side of what to me seems so clearly wrong? But I cannot find proof for what Israel is accused of either. I cannot get past the the islamism and antisemitism so evident of Hamas and the pro Palestine protestors.

    Your friend is intellectually lazy. Were his intentions honorable he would engage with you openly, discuss where he believes you are wrong, provide information that could dissuade you were it proper evidence. Even if he disagrees with your conclusion, were he really interested in knowledge and understanding, he would continue reading your texts in order to stay informed from a multitude of sources. Cutting of information that does not suit our narrative is, for lack of a better word, dumb. One should expect better from an academic, no? (Then again, is this not exactly why we are in the current situation in academia where everyone is grouped into camps of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ based on simplistic reasoning and a priori beliefs?).
    Instead he cuts ties with you. It is moral grand-standing and cowardly.

    Please keep up your excellent work. I commend you for constantly questioning and actively trying to consider several perspectives in order to form informed conclusions. If only your colleague could learn from you rather than close his eyes and mind.

    1. I agree with your characterization, Johanna (“… signpost in order in order to maintain a semblance of righteousness”). I have the image of a kid picking up his/her lunch tray and defecting to a different table in the cafeteria. It’s not “cool” to support Israel, facts be damned.

      I’ve read and listened to the opinions of many Israeli/Middle Eastern specialists who are much closer to this war (physically, intellectually and spiritually) than I’ll ever be and I feel as worn out and empty of ideas as most readers here. I listened to Sam Harris’s lengthy interview with Rajiv Rettig Gur the other night (It was recorded shortly after Israel had softened up Iranian targets, before the US went in). It’s over 2 hours long (!) and they didn’t get to the big question of whether to save the hostages or destroy Hamas till the last 20-30 minutes — Gur had his typically individual take on all the issues. He’s for getting the hostages out, first and foremost (he puts this in the framework of Jewish history… passionately!), he’s a complete hawk on Gaza and he doesn’t buy that “you can’t kill an idea” wrt stomping out Hamas for good.

      Edit: I should add that he feels strongly about the food/aid issue which has been hotly debated on WEIT. He thinks the decision to pause aid was when/where Israel/Netanyahu stumbled badly

    2. Re friends and acquaintances accusing Israel of genocide, I’ve just recently decided to try out a more gentle response, starting something like “Yes, all those civilian death are horrible…. But is it genocide? What is ‘genocide’ anyway?” I am prepared to gradually escalate to Defcon 1 as appropriate.

      Key document (a short read):
      https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf

  8. This problem will be with us for generations, so long as Palestinians (or their leadership) continue to demand the extinction of Israel.

    Regarding your questions—The Four Questions

    1) Israel is on the fence. The main reason for food uncertainty (in contrast to famine) is that Israel is trying to keep Hamas from stealing and monetizing the aid that’s coming in. But given food insecurity, Israel is probably taking some advantage in order to pressure Hamas. Israel it is not promoting famine which, they know, brings global condemnation that is not in the Israeli interest.

    2) It’s hard to say. The IDF is apparently using live ammunition, but since Hamas fighters are also near the food distribution centers, the IDF needs live ammunition. Having more journalists on the ground might bring more transparency. Or, it might make the lies of partisan journalists more credible. More journalists in Gaza is a risk.

    3) No. There is no credible plan. This is why Israel is casting about for solutions, or partial solutions, such as offering Gazans refuge in South Sudan. The Israeli leadership appears to be flailing regarding possible end states.

    4) The hostages must sadly remain secondary to the survival of the State of Israel. If Israel makes a deal for the hostages that allows Hamas to survive, the existential threat against Israel would remain, as Hamas will regroup. On the other hand, Israel could make a deal to rescue the hostages, but remain at the ready to go back into Gaza at the slightest indication that it is regrouping. At this point, I might pursue this route if I were in charge.

    How to end the war? Deal for the hostages, as I said above, but remain mobilized indefinitely to go back in if necessary. That will end this war, and could deter the next. This isn’t all that satisfying a solution, as it’s not different in principle from what Israel has been pursuing since it left Gaza in 2005: the policy of “mowing the lawn.”

    This war can end, but without generational change in the Palestinian goal of destroying Israel, there remains a risk of a next war.

    I, too, have friendships at risk. I’m thinking of one in particular. I will continue to reach out. It’s the best I can do.

  9. I can’t add much more to the comments above, all of which I agree with. There’s a reason that Egypt and Jordan refuse to allow Palestinian refugees in their countries; when they did so they caused havoc, supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Black September events in Jordan. Both countries parrot the talking points about Palestinians having their own land and not wanting refugees to get stuck in their respective countries, which has some truth to it, but they really don’t want militants back on their soil at all. I do think Netanyahu is a problem, and is acting more in his own political interests, but I’m not sure what the solution at this point is. Israel has to get its hostages back, and Hamas is delighted that several (deluded, IMO) countries are now supporting the idea of a two-state solution, which’ll mean they’ll dig their heels in even further, Palestinian civilians be damned. I have a close friend in the IDF, who tells me that the military is not happy at all with Netanyahu, and that he appears to have no strategy or end-game in mind, which is driving military leadership nuts (but of course they keep these squabbles internal). And then of course the media continues to parrot Hamas and UN talking points, which is just adding fuel to the fire. (By the way, in the mid-90s I spent a lot of time in Israel, and visited Gaza a few times. My ex was the Middle East bureau chief for a large newspaper. He and his colleagues all told me back then that it was well-known that Hamas had infiltrated UNWRA and that the UN turned a blind eye.)

    1. As Egypt’s and Jordan’s economies are dependent on Saudi/Gulf financing, as well as US, European, IMF etc funding; and given that Netanyahu’s government seems to have political survival as its primary war aim; the relative silence from Egypt and Saudi Arabia seems telling. [ BTW, Israeli historian Benny Morris in Quillette describe’s Netanyahu’s government as ‘the most corrupt in the West’. ]
      There may eventually be a kick-the-Palestinian-statehood-can-down-the-road stalling operation by having Egypt and Jordan reluctantly take over Gaza and West Bank in a 21st Century version of the UN Mandates, a ‘temporary mandate’ of 50, 60, 70 years which has the virtue of current politicians being out of office when the end point nears. Egypt and Jordan ‘agree’ by having the economic funding dependent on this. Palestinians who disagree with this, pardon the pun ‘state’ of affairs continually reminded the alternative is IDF control. However, Egypt and Jordan will not be compelled to accept Palestinian refugees.
      Of course this will not be a peaceful solution. It is a description of what is possible given political realities, such as ‘money talks’, and ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’.

  10. Hi. I am afraid my position is very similar to that of your colleague but I am very encouraged indeed by your thoughtful reflections on the situation.
    A full response to all your very pertinent questions would take up a very long time so please forgive me with just limiting my response to some further resources that I found very useful and that might help clarify why your position seems to be losing credence amongst many including Jews.
    The first is this excellent discussion ((not even an argument – it’s far too good hearted and sincere to be so called that) between two Israelis each with expertise in the issues and one with a relevant military insight:

    The second is this Q and A with Phillippe Sands and Ezra Klein. Neither I think can be accused of anti-Israel bias. Again it is a respectful and thoughtful discussion.

    The next is a short statement but deeply affecting (to me at any rate) by Peter Beinart that addressed inter alia the issue of how effective Netanyahu’s war aims are. https://peterbeinart.substack.com/p/now-they-tell-us?utm_source=podcast-email&publication_id=105260&post_id=167781976&utm_campaign=email-play-on-substack&utm_content=watch_now_button&r=m9gdi&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

    The final resource is a recent account of the situation re the GHF. It is striking that you appear to require video evidence of unjustified killing – is credible eye witness testimony not enough? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH6d0-fqZS8

    Underlying that is a fundamental issue not addressed in your reflections and that is the refusal of Israel to allow independent media access to Gaza (and equally crucially why they refuse Red Cross/Red Crescent access to detention centres). Even commentators like Piers Morgan are seeing this as unjustifiable and attempts to do so as self serving propaganda.

    My apologies if you are already aware of all these but what they all share, I think, is a sense of what the conflict is doing to what it means to be Jewish and I think that concern is implicit in much of what you are grappling with too.

        1. Obsessed? That is about as rude as you can get. If you think that what I just wrote was obsessed, your moral compass is askew. And learn to be civil to a website host. .

    2. Aguilar has been exposed as a compulsive liar and thus is not a credible “witness”. He was fired and vowed revenge on the organization unless they re-hired him. Which they didn’t.

      As for Israel not allowing international media into Gaza unless they are embedded with the IDF for safety, what do you think would happen the first time Hamas kidnaps an infidel reporter for use as another hostage?

  11. I’m no expert on the subject but I do know that Hamas has lied repeatedly in the past. But now I’m supposed to believe they’re telling the truth now?

    I don’t see a solution.

  12. I am with you.
    The only way out is the total destruction of Hamas, it must be disarmed and disbanded. Sadly this can only be done by military occupying the Gaza Strip (the parts that are still under Hamas control) and since nobody wants to do it only Israel can do it. Until the October the 7th, 2023 Israel already knew that the only way to destroy Hamas was by military occupying the Gaza Strip but they thought it was too much costly and that Gaza could be contained they never predicted and assault on the scale we have seen on October the 7th and this was a disaster. After October the 7th obviously Hamas must be disbanded and disarmed whatever the cost.
    What to do after? Probably a large military international force (probabily from arab country that don’t want the destruction of Israel) will be needed to give the Gaza strip population the time to recover, the alternatives are even less viable.

  14. I’m generally in agreement with Coyne on this and especially like the comment from one reader that stressed Hamas’s dedication to obliterating Israel and all Jews–and how that blind determination must be taken into account by Israel. Nuance and complexity seem to be lost on the pro-Palestinian “left.”

  15. I think in a foreign war, you have to decide if you are going to pick a side and if you do, you will defend that side no matter what it does. Your colleague may have not picked a side and doesn’t much care one way or the other if Israel wins or loses this war, or any future wars. Such an ambivalent observer would place great emphasis on such militarily irrelevant questions about whether Israel is hampering food aid or is occasionally shooting civilians without the absolute best of reasons….and use his outrage at such trivia as an excuse to say, “See, Israel is just as bad as Hamas”, or “Israel must not be allowed to win this war because it’s military has killed many non-combatants that using the counsel of perfection maybe [no one can know this] could have been avoided if the IDF had risked more infantry and used fewer air strikes or different types of ordnance.” A more sophisticated view, also wrong, is that Israel should “take the win” and stop fighting before it has either achieved its war aims or has concluded itself they are unachievable. Stopping a war you are winning against an implacable enemy just to prevent more deaths among non-combatants is foolish. People who believe any of these three excuses will sever friendships over them because to them they are self-evidently true and we are moral imbeciles.

    You can’t win over such people because they just don’t believe in Israel’s cause. “Right to defend itself” doesn’t for them mean offensive war to destroy the enemy…or they may not accept Israel’s right to exist as a Zionist state in the first place.

    The conduct of the war is Israel’s responsibility and hers alone. I have no suggestions for the Prime Minister, just as I would not have expected Winston Churchill to have taken my advice about how to run the night air offensive against Germany. “Too many fires, Mr. Churchill. Too many civilians roasted in their beds. Do something different or Canada’s gonna stop trying to sink U-Boats in the Atlantic for you!” Similarly, the plan for Gaza is something Israel will have to figure out for itself, and take the consequences. World opinion doesn’t really count. Whether Israel has a plan now has no bearing on whether her foreign friends should support her. (Other than the U.S., they won’t anyway.) The “United Nations” fighting Germany and Japan worked out a postwar plan during several conferences among the Big Three allies. Israel is fighting this alone, so she gets to decide alone what to do after. A lot is going to depend on if Hamas surrenders and disarms and the people get an attitude adjustment on the scale of de-nazification. If it, and they, won’t, Israel may just have to fight on until the last boy who learned hate in his nursery school from reading UNRWA books has died strapping on a suicide vest. (In such a war, every IDF casualty becomes a national tragedy and the people who killed him or her become expendable ten times over. Resistance has a price.)

    The Second World War taught us that civilian deaths and privation don’t matter in war. All that matters in a just war is that you win, or failing that, you don’t lose. I’ve been an Israeli partisan since the 1967 War, the first world event I had any sense of significance about. (I have no memory of Vietnam before the Tet Offensive.) I can’t think of anything Israel could do that would turn me against her right to emasculate her enemies. It’s a fundamental clash of values that I know which is the right side I want to be on. If your own views are similarly uncompromising you should not lose confidence. Friends come and go. As an American citizen you have the potential to influence the only government in the world that matters. You should not shrink from that in the name of what you believe is right, war being the morally agonizing proposition that it is.

    1. Leslie, your implied analogy to WWII strikes me as exactly right. The allies did many terrible things—including killing and injuring thousands of French civilians in the course of the Normandy invasion. Nonetheless, these actions were all for the inarguable goal of Nazism’s unconditional surrender. That goal was both just and practical, as Europe’s post-war development demonstrated. Israel’s war against Hamas is in the same category, especially in view of Hamas’ relationship to other Islamist terror outfits whose targets are outside Israel, in Paris, NYC, etc. etc.

    2. Re an attitude adjustment on the scale of de-nazification; I think there’s a better example, since that effort was half-hearted at best, partly due to the successor state West Germany having post-war elites who were, shall we say, tainted.
      (See the I Was Not a Nazi Polka on YouTube.)

      I prefer the example of US occupied Japan, which post-war not only purged most of the top leaders but maintained a 7-year effort to reform the political, economic, and social structures. Israel or the UN just need a MacArthur or two….

      Edit: And re those who say “See, Israel is just as bad as Hamas”, it’s telling that they never say “See, Hamas is as bad as Israel.” They’ve pretty clearly picked a side, whether they know it or not.

  16. Jaw, jaw, jaw is better than war, war, war. But first you have to find someone to talk to. Too many religious people who for some you can never be religious enough.

  17. What astounds me is the number of people (often young, naive, idealistic individuals) who actually know precious little about this enormously complex issue and its long, complex history, but yet will strongly “take a side” for either Israel or Palestine, thinking that one side is all wrong and the other is all right. The fact is that neither is lily white, and that it’s just a complete mess, and it could be argued that it ultimately boils down to two tribes arguing over who has the best imaginary friend.

    1. So you think that the IDF and Hamas are morally equivalent–exactly equal because “neither is lily white”? Presumably, then, you thought that about the U.S. vs. the Nazis in WWII (remember fire bombings like Dresden?). It is a mistake, I think, to say that because neither side is “lily white”, they are then morally equivalent.

      1. Certainly not, for it was Israel that was attacked in a most horrific way on Oct 7th. Stating the fact that neither is lily white in no way means that they are morally equivalent.

        1. Your last sentence implied that there was no side better than the other: “it could be argued that it ultimately boils down to two tribes arguing over who has the best imaginary friend”.

          I think that’s misguided and a bit trivial. That is not a good way, I think, to ponder this war. Imaginary friend or not, people are dying on both sides.

  18. Given the nature of your response, you might ask yourself: what (if anything) has Israel done that is either wrong or illegal?

    1. If I knew the facts about food and stuff, I could give a better answer. Cutting off aid for two months was wrong. Killing three hostages was wrong, but could be seen as unavoidable given the circumstances. And if I knew whether the Al-Jazeera journalist was really a Hamas cell leader, and was killed (along with four others), I could judge whether that was wrong or a mistake.

      I see nothing illegal in what Israel has done, regardless of what the International Courts have decided.

      1. Israel has published several HAMAS documents saying that the journalist was a paid Hamas soldier. I have never heard any counter-evidence that the documents are fraudulent or misleading, all I see is flat out denial that any such evidence exists which is clearly false.

      2. AIUI, the the International Court of Justice has not yet decided anything about Israel’s alleged crimes.

  19. I have yet to see a convincing argument either way. My Israeli academic friends tell me of weekly street protests in Israel where they protest for three equally weighted goals; (1) end the war, (2) bring the hostages home, and (3) Hamas must go into exile. See especially (3) which is completely absent in Western discourse.

    I am sympathetic to that disposition but skeptical that (3) could be achieved without military force along the lines of what Israel is already doing.

    Speaking for myself, I am very troubled that Israel does not seem to have a credible plan for ending the war. But I also can’t wrap my head around how much more we talk about it given that it’s at most the fifth most consequential conflict in the Middle East in the last 25 years.

    That being said I have yet to see a proper grappling on the pro-Palestinian side of the ledger (often functionally pro-Hamas) that really contends with where the war sits in the statistical distribution of wars (at most one sigma on the bad side of the mean) let alone Hamas’ conduct. What is the correct way to pursue a war when your enemy hides behind civilians; hides inside hospitals, underneath apartment buildings; holds hostages in the midst of civilian populations; steals aid and then extorts its own people; let alone celebrating death, their own, their people, their enemy. The protestors around my parts, who started protesting an Israeli genocide on October 14, protested the deaths of Sinwar and Nasrallah, cheered on Iran, etc, of course have nothing to say other than some version of “Israel shouldn’t even exist (and neither should the illegitimate state of so called Canada).” I expect nothing from them. But I would like some engagement with the actual problems of the conflict beyond Bibi and Israel from the side that wants the war to end now, and at least amongst my friends on the opposite side I have yet to see it. What I see instead is completely predictable everything-that’s-bad-is-Israel advocacy often from as a specific instance of more general sentiments that everything-from-the-West-is-bad.

  20. In the way of wild speculation, what about the idea of moving the Gazan civilians adjacent to the piece of land controlled by the Palestinian Authority? I know there would be more questions than answers, and I don’t have any of the latter. Would it make the security situation easier for Israel?

    1. Yes, I have also wondered if this wouldn’t be the best solution. Add and equal parcel of land to the West Bank, resettle everybody, pull the settlers out and just have one border to worry about.

  21. Of course someone like me hasn’t got the wits, knowledge or skill to solve a problem like this.

    I do believe, however, that it’s too late to do anything about the success of Hamas’ lies and, tragically, the willingness of so many to believe them, your colleague and commentor Martin Kukor above being examples. Israel is already smeared. There is quite literally nothing they could do, not a single thing, that will help undo those lies. That’s because it’s not about facts. The motives are varied; religious insanity (but I repeat myself), rank antisemitism, poorly disguised Marxism, blinkered ignorance (any accusing Isreal of being an apartheid state knows nothing of either), and, worst of all, moral cowardice, as those who equivocate on what Hamas did on October 7th (and had been doing for a generation) are guilty of. This is what drives those who hate Israel now, not what has and is actually happening. This kind of depraved morality will not allow Israel any path to peace, in fact it is designed to prevent it.

    So I don’t believe peace is possible. In Netanyahu’s shoes, I’d do my best to finish the military job as soon as can be done. For the reasons I cite above, I wouldn’t give a tinker’s fart for world opinion on the effort either. Give food and aid to the Palestinians, sure. But let them sort it out. The Israelis CAN NOT win that effort; no amount of aid will change your colleague’s or Martin’s mind. Again, it’s not about facts. So yeah, drive trucks up to the border full of food, whatever meds or aid is helpful and let them have it. Israel certainly can’t distribute it and ALL of the criminal acts that WILL happen will be blamed on Israel anyway, so I say, drop off the aid and wash their hands. It’s time to accept that Hamas will not (and never intended) to release the remaining hostages. Hopefully, if they are alive, they will be after Hamas is destroyed, but Israel should no longer hold back on their account. When Hamas is dead and gone, I would annex Gaza and give the population a choice; leave or become citiizens.

    As for the West Bank…well, as above, I believe that because of the world-wide efforts of useful idiots, there is no path to peace for Israel there either. I can imagine an independent state there at some point, but it’s a fool’s dream. And anyway, it would be the most violent, bloody border in the world. I expect that when that day comes, and their dreams for a Palestinian state come true and the reality of life with the monster they’ve created becomes apparent, they will put the blame where they believe it belongs; on the elderly Jews killed at the bus stops and the Israelis slaughtered in their cafes. Just as they’ve always done.

    I have to say – I am deeply distressed that I now think this way. I used to be a real peacenik in my youth.

  22. Daniel Pipes contends that an acceptable local government by Gazans who reject Hamas ideology could be possible in the future, but only after Hamas is destroyed militarily and disarmed. I have no idea how realistic Pipes is in expecting
    compromise from a polity of post-Hamas Palestinian Arabs.
    See: https://www.danielpipes.org/22263/a-decent-gaza-is-possible
    Excerpt:
    “Ridded of the foul Hamas and PA, Israel can then rebuild by working with the growing body of Palestinians ready to come to terms with the fact of Israel’s existence and seeking to benefit from it. This means, first, constructing administrations in Gaza and the West Bank by working directly with moderate Palestinians, something Jerusalem has almost never tried. Together, these long-time enemies can build a decent polity, comparable to what is found in Egypt or Jordan.

    Second, it means supporting the voices of moderates and amplifying in Arabic the message of Palestinians calling for an end to a century of futile anti-Zionist negativity. Appreciating Israel’s elections, rule of law, freedom of speech and religion, minority rights, orderly political structures, and other benefits, they want to end the futile rejectionism in favor of building something positive.

    Experiencing the bitter crucible of defeat, ironically, will benefit Palestinians even more than Israelis, allowing them finally to emerge from a long miasma of nihilism.”

    1. Maybe, but they’ve had plenty of bitter defeats which have only increased their thirst for revenge. This time it’s different, nu?

    2. “Appreciating Israel’s elections, rule of (secular) law, freedom of speech and religion, minority rights”

      None of that is remotely compatible with Islam so it won’t happen.

  23. If Israel stops fighting in Gaza with Hamas retaining any power or influence at all, then the cycle of the past 20 years will simply continue. Hamas fires rockets into Israeli cities or villages or, god forbid, manages to conduct another murderous invasion, and the Israelis respond…with more dire consequences for Gazans. Until the Gazans can shed their hatred of Jews and see any other strategy other than extreme violence, they will have no peace, and certainly no state. As is often said in the Middle East…”The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity”.

  24. The latest reports I’ve seen are that over 85% of aid going into Gaza is being hijacked (https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2025/08/05/un-reports-88-percent-of-aid-trucks-slated-for-delivery-in-gaza-since-may-looted-along-routes/). There is little doubt that Hamas is responsible for the bulk of this theft.

    Were I in charge of ending the war, I’d start with the Hamas leadership. It’s unclear if they are still residing in Qatar; regardless of where they are they need to be arrested and brought to The Hague. Qatar must also be sanctioned unless and until it stops supporting Hamas.

    There can be no peace until Hamas is eliminated or in exile and all hostages are returned. I sadly agree with our host that the remaining hostages are either already dead or soon will be. The hardest decision I would consider would be to flood the tunnels used by the terrorists. This might kill the remaining hostages. It is, nonetheless, essential to deprive the terrorists of their bases and ability to hide.

    1. Do the Hamas leaders in Qatar have sufficient sway to force their underlings in Gaza to accept exile & surrender?

      If so, then a US demand that they be handed over to be tried seems like it could be one way out. Qatar seems like more or less a US satrapy, and I remain somewhat surprised they haven’t been under more pressure. (I’d skip the Hague, they have suitable warships moored there right now. But the main point would be getting the rest to choose exile.)

      Not something the Israeli PM could directly do, though.

      “flood the tunnels used by the terrorists”

      My impression was that they destroyed every tunnel they could find, although with explosives. Do you have the impression they are refraining from some anti-tunnel measures because of the hostages? (I’m not sure how good a method water is… it may not reach further into the system than an explosion can.)

      1. My understanding is that a large portion of the Hamas tunnels remain operational and that at least some of the hostages are held in them. I’m not personally familiar with whether or not water is better than explosives, but I have heard people with military backgrounds suggest flooding. It’s certainly safer than sending in troops.

    2. How about Eichmann-style kidnappings by Mosad? You’d have to round them all up at once, which sounds impossible. Assassinations would be a very bad look, and martyrs are just so cool.

  25. Honestly — I don’t know. It’s not just that I’m not in Netanyahu’s position — it’s also that I am lacking in any reasonable expertise in military issues, and I know very little about what is actually happening on the ground in Gaza and nothing about the resources available to Israel and Hamas. All I know is — Hamas started the war. The war is not over. Most wars end with one side surrendering, and that has not happened yet. And so –I make no judgments about Israel’s actions and I am in no position to say what I think Israel should, and should not, be doing.

  26. Short Term:
    – Surge food and medical aid into Gaza via GHF and traditional NGOs. If food is essentially free then Hamas’ control over food distribution will have little value to them.
    – Follow the IDF advice and minimize additional military action.
    – Be more effective advancing Israeli position on the world stage. Allow western journalists to enter Gaza and report freely.

    Long term, the solution to Gaza is for the Arab states to
    – put greater pressure on Hamas leaders,
    – allow refugees to voluntarily leave Gaza, and
    – ultimately to provide governance to Gaza.

    A “reformed” PA cannot provide governance in Gaza that is materially different from Hamas. A Palestinian revolt against Hamas is also unlikely.

    Hamas is not an immediate threat to Israel so patience is in order. Long term, the solution to Gaza is for the Arab states to
    – put greater pressure on Hamas leaders,
    – allow refugees to voluntarily leave Gaza, and
    ultimately provide governance to Gaza.

    Yes they have been reluctant to take these steps, but as the source of international outrage to Israel is reduced with greater aid and less military action, the recent significant strategic improvement of Israel’s position in the Middle East may overcome this reluctance. These factors include Arab nations’ desire to enlarge the Abraham Accords, Israel’s emerging economic and high-tech strength, the setback to Iran’s nuclear program and Europe’s reluctance to allow enrichment, the degradation of Hezbollah, the Lebanese government’s re-assertion of military control within its borders, and the fall of Assad regime. Exposure of the absurdity of settler-colonialism narrative, the rejection of Israel’s existence by the left in Europe and the US, and more generally the decline of “wokeism” may help change the political vibe.

  27. The dismantling of Hamas is one thing, while the erasure of a race is entirely another, and a distinction that Israel should understand above all others. Apparently not.

    1. There’s been ~35k civilian deaths in Gaza since the war began, out of a population of ~2×10^6. Would you describe that as the erasure of a race?

    2. This is an invidious comment. As I said, Israel is not committing genocide. And if it wanted to destroy a race (are Palestinians a race?) it could already have done so.

      You have not paid attention to what is going on. Bye!

      1. Jerry, I think Kristan was ridiculing those who say that Israel is committing genocide. He is pointing out that the number of deaths in Gaza is only a tiny fraction of the whole population, so it is ridiculous to describe this as “erasure of a race”. At least that’s my take on his comment.

    3. The idea that Israel is committing genocide is a modern blood libel with no basis in fact. Perpetrating it is reprehensible.

      Israel acts to minimize civilian casualties, even at the cost of higher risk to IDF soldiers, while Hamas deliberately uses civilians as shields.

  28. I am very sorry about your friend. One can only advise them (if they are reading), that they should try to keep listening to opinions that they don’t agree with, at least to test and hone arguments for and against their own opinion. Jon Stewart Mill-like.

    Although I support Israel here, my own doubts about the Israeli side of this terrible war comes when I read about things like ordinance being dropped into established civilian shelters or into marketplaces in order to take out some Hamas soldiers or a commander. I know that there are reasons why this must be done and that measures are taken to minimize civilian casualties. I think also that doing this is technically legal in war – but it is a very hard thing to fully accept even so. That sort of thing has caused me to waver more than once.

  29. If I were leading Israel on Oct7th, I would have counted the hostages as dead and put Gaza under total blockade. Limited action to secure the border with Egypt and then make it clear, that deliveries will resume once the population hands over the perpetrators.

    Now that there have been nearly 2 years of war and Gaza is in ruins anyhow, I would continue the war against Hamas. I would actually welcome the recognition of the state of Palestine, just so that official war could be declared and conditions for a peace could be dictated.
    Calculate how many calories and how much water are required and then allow in exactly that amount (aid needs to be provided by a 3rd party of course). No fuel but bottles of propane for cooking and heating that won’t work with the Hamas generators. Whoever wants to distribute the aid can do so and if it ends in Hamas’ hands, you can blame them for any hunger in Gaza. Israel only clears the aid and can demonstrate, that enough calories are getting in. Medical supplies is a grey area, but I guess antibiotics and basic medicine are OK.
    After ensuring food, water and a bit of heat for the civilians, just keep going. The only way you can get rid of Hamas is if the Gazans overthrow them. If the Gazans want to end the war, they know what to do: get rid of Hamas and return everything that’s left of the hostages. Until that happens, the Gazans want that war to go on.

    Should a state of Palestine be officially recognized, Israel should recognize it, too. Declare war on Palestine – you still have a solid casus belli. Offer the PA a ceasefire of 3 months to deliver the Hamas terrorists and all hostages to you. Else the Westbank will suffer the same fate as Gaza – it’s one Palestinian state after all. If Gaza is part of Palestine, it’s the problem of the entire state of Palestine if the Gazan leadership attacks Israel.

    I think Gaza is already destroyed to such an extend that it’s not really habitable without a major rebuilding effort. Give Gazans the choice between a chance to rebuild after getting rid of Hamas and just continued existence in misery with enough calories for survival but nothing else.

    1. You actually answered Jerry’s questions. Commendable! I believe he’s lost patience with so many of us seeming to ignore them. Your point about granting statehood to Palestine and declaring war on it (in its entirety — east and west) is quite original (to me, at least).

  30. I hoped your colleague might have come by this page today to answer your question, “What plan of action would you devise to end the war?” And explain how it is better than what Israel has done for the last 22 months.

  31. I don’t think you can offer a solution until you clearly face reality, and the reality here is that the Palestinians are the literal and symbolic incarnation of the Islamic world’s refusal to accept the existence of the Jewish state in its neighborhood and their desire to destroy Israel and all its people, no matter how many deaths or decades it takes.
    There has never been a Palestinian leader committed to peaceful coexistence and there has never been a Palestinian peace movement. Instead they have rejected every peace plan and even rejected having their own internationally recognized state on multiple occasions. Palestinians are the only 4th-generation refugees, the only people who imagine a “right of return” out of all the many millions relocated by the wars and political upheavals of the 20th century, and the only people not allowed to flee a war zone—instead they must stay trapped and used as pawns in the eternal campaign to destroy Israel, while being fed a steady diet of Jew hate starting in kindergarten.
    Also, the 2-state solution officially died on 10/7. The people still clinging to the fantasy that withdrawing the West Bank settlements will lead to peace refuse to see that Israel entirely withdrew from Gaza, uprooted communities and graveyards, and even left behind valuable infrastructure—all of which was either destroyed or utilized in acts of terrorism, culminating in the barbaric 10/7 massacre. The same thing would play out in the West Bank if Israel left, with the difference here being the WB includes high territory that looks down directly onto Tel Aviv, thus being a perfect spot for a missile attack.
    Israel needs to find some way to completely segregate itself from Palestinians, pull back to some border and build a massive fence or wall, while letting them know that if so much as a Nerf football flies over the fence, it will be met with a tenfold bombing. Israel has offered deals and concessions for decades and has received in return nothing but Jew hate and bloodshed. They have to find a way to pull their leg out of this bear trap, and short of some Roman v Carthage massacre, total separation seems more sensible.

  32. Israelis should have no plans to “end” the war unless they are losing, can no longer bear the cost, foresee no further strategic gains at acceptable price, or endanger themselves on other fronts by overextending. While they must constantly revisit those points, the focus in Gaza right now should be on winning. If that is defined as eliminating Hamas, then ongoing military operations will advance that objective. The irony is that war weariness among the Israeli public, economic strain, and international condemnation all push the Israeli military toward more aggressive action in the near term while they still have a window in which to act. Can they reach their objectives? Time will tell, but if they back away now while they possess an advantage, then they surely will not.

    I feel sorry for the families of the hostages, but those who are calling for a hostage deal, with the swap of terrorists for victims, are part of Israel’s problem. As are those well-meaning people who feel that the chief concern in any war is to stop the killing. Past negotiations set the ground for future hostage taking and made it a profitable strategy for Hamas to pursue. Publicly-expressed anguish over dead Palestinian children, with subsequent pressure on Israel to “end the killing,” invites a strategy of Hamas offering up their children as sacrifices to their cause. There is a very real sense in which the blood of the innocents is partly on the hands of those who would “protect” them.

    A political or military leader can have deep compassion for the families of hostages, yet realize that negotiating for those hostages simply assures there will be future hostage families. He can anguish in private over the lamentable loss of innocent life that results from his directions or his actions while still recognizing that public wailing and equivocation will simply invite future loss of innocent life. And he can simultaneously see that public dissent might be misguided while still offering valuable challenges to complacency and stubbornness.

    Most affluent Westerners in their disenchanted world of consumer luxury, comfortable lives, and supposedly rational thought have a nearly impossible time stepping into the mindset of those who, not only do not share their values or their worldview, but are practically the antithesis of it. Hamas is counting on their weakness. Netanyahu understands this; his challenge will be to guard against intransigence as conditions change.

  33. I have been a longtime reader and you have posted some of my photos.
    I think you are very logical, objective and unbiased. I do think your attachment to Israel is visible, and maybe influenced by your background. I don’t have any ethnic, cultural or other connection to Israel but I totally agree with your POV. For me, Israel, with all its flaws is on the side of civilisation and intellect; Hamas, with all their grievances, are on the side of chaos and stupidity. And Israel is not few, it is the only, while of dysfunctional Muslim states we have no shortage. Please go on supporting Israel.

  34. I would make the following offer to Hamas: you free all hostages, and we withdraw.

    Of course, this would leave Hamas in power. The only other choice for me (as the PM) would be to continue the war until Hamas is completely defeated. I would reject this because of the level of suffering in Gaza.

    1. So you do realize that your solution will leave Hamas in power–the terrorist organization that is sworn to repeat October 7 over and over again? You are dooming Israel to constant terrorism of the October 7 nature. I myself do not buy it. Hamas will always be an existential threat to Israel.

      1. Not only what Jerry said, but it would be betrayal of trust for a national leader to place the interests of foreigners, however tear-jerking, over those of his own people. This would be justification for his immediate removal from office. A high crime and misdemeanour if ever there was one, even treason in war.

        Proportionality must rule: as long as the suffering in Gaza is in some reasonable proportion to the value of the military objective as seen by Israel (not necessarily by anyone else) it must continue. If Gazans are finding their suffering too much to bear, all they have to do is surrender.

  35. “i ask that you unsubscribe me from WEIT.”.

    I subscribe myself to whatever RSS feeds I want to receive and unsubscribe myself when I change my mind. Why would you need to unsubscribe someone?

    1. Precisely – I certainly am not in total agreement with our host’s perspective on the seemingly never-ending conflicts within Israel; however that certainly does not lead me to unsubscribe because I need to hear reasoned analyses and opinions from various viewpoints.

      Although I am not a secular Jew my perspective pretty much aligns with Jim Patterson’s as stated in 6 above. If you look at the ever-changing map of Israel since its establishment, it’s clear that land that was once all Palestinian is now mostly Israeli – https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-54116567 Although Jerry does not believe that a two-state solution is viable, I agree with Jim that at this point in time, it is the only alternative.

      1. I’d add that the real solution to this problem, and to many others in the world, is a total eradication of religion!!!

          1. Nearly all are pernicious, so it’d be hard to know where to start! I think that I’d start with Islam, then Christianity, then Judaism. The big three so to speak 😊

        2. I don’t think I’d trust you with that kind of power. I fear that much more than I fear any religion.

      2. The very last thing the world needs is yet another hate-filled, ultra-oppressive Islamic state. We’ve got more than 50 already and that is way too many for the modern civilized world. As one of the former PLO leaders famously said, there is NO such thing as a “Palestinian people” and never has been – they are simply Arab Muslims, same as those in Jordan and Egypt. So have the West Bank Muslims move across the border to the Arab Muslim state of Jordan which already encompasses 85% of historic Palestine, and likewise the Gazans can move into their home country of Egypt.

        1. I think that.is a very reasonable proposition and would be fully supportive. But reason is in pretty short supply in the region. It’s interesting that the neighboring Arab states don’t want the Palestinians. And I would argue that there are indeed Arabs that identify as Palestinians. I went to college with two fellows whose homes and businesses were taken from them when Israel was established. Needless to say they were resentful.

  36. Hi Jerry, I do think your bias towards Israel has coloured your judgement on the performance of the IDF. There are now many war criminals amongst its ranks. There are also many victims of those war criminals amongst its ranks.

    To neutralise a combatant such as Hamas in an urban area requires troops on the ground fighting to face with rifles, bayonets and pistols and non lethal weapons such as stun grenades and tasers. Armour vehicles are useful, but only as shield. Their main armaments are mostly useless and need to be subject to very restrictive orders for opening fire. This type of fighting require lots of troops to fight street to street, house to house floor to floor and you get the idea. Tunnel rats become the heroes of the conflict as they did in Vietnam. Hearts and minds campaigns similar that waged by the British Commonwealth Forces during the Malayan conflict forces in Malaysia and Australia in East Timor in 1999-2000 are required. This requires construction, aid, medical treatment etc. Not genocide. (It’s not the terrain that’s important, it’s getting the civilian population onside) 2000lb bombs and 155mm HE artillery projectiles cause too much collateral damage. As a retired operational planner in the Australian Defence Force any plan put to the Australian Government suggesting the use of such weapons would be laughted out of the National Security Committee of Cabinet and the planner appointed to oversee the painting of rocks at a base in far NW Australia.

    I would put to you that if you cannot find evidence of the IDF and Israel (and its mercenary forces) withholding and shooting at Palestine displaced persons you’re not looking hard enough. There are also many first hand accounts being published. Is Bernie Sanders Making false statements?

    This crisis and the actions of Israel has lead the Australian Commonwealth Government to take steps to recognise a Palestinian state. This overturns long held Australian government policy held for as long as I can remember.

    The preponderance of evidence goes against Israel The NYT and WaPO are not reliable sources of news captures as they are by swayed by PACs such as AIPAC and WAPO especially Jeff Bezos by Donald “Neville Chamberlain” Trump. Try Mehdi Hasan, Meidas Touch, some of the accounts on Substack that provide first hand accounts of the conflict.

    Before any accuses me of being an armchair general. I have thirty years of service in command and staff appointments in the Australian Army. Ubique

    1. I put to you that your bias against Israel has led you to accuse Israel of genocide, which on the face of is a dumb comment, regardless of whether you served in the Australian army. I note that you level no accusations of misbehavior towards Hamas.

      1. Oh, yes. Grant makes no comment about the booby trapping of houses and buildings by Hamas who had cleared the civilian residents from the areas. The IDF, I read somewhere (can’t remember offhand where), having lost several soldiers in previous “street to street, house to house…” operations, realised the safest way to clear these buildings was just to bomb them flat. No civilians affected thanks to Hamas, unless those creeps allowed a few residents back to make the IDF look bad.

    2. I would be interested to hear the elements of a “hearts and minds” campaign plan that you would expect to bear fruit among this intensely-hostile population whose hatred for their antagonist long precedes its current military operations. I don’t disagree that continued operations intensify this hatred and that Israel is at risk of violating its own values. But I would like to hear the specific actions, rather than a generic plan, that you believe will placate the hatred in this population for this antagonist.

      As you can no doubt tell, I believe the deep-seated animosity exists independent of Israeli action—even while granting that Israel has exacerbated it over the years. And while I appreciate your focus on alternative tactics and operations, I would also like to see it wrestle with the intense ideological and religious nature of the animosity. Some hearts cannot be won; some minds cannot be changed.

    3. Since about 4% of the population of humans are psychopaths or sociopaths, one must expect that something like that fraction exists in any army and that some of those will commit crimes. Israel investigates and if confirmed, punishes such crimes. HAMAS celebrates such crimes and in fact commits a war crime every time it fires a bullet by fighting without uniforms, using child soldiers, using children, babies, women, and other non-combatants as human shields, systematically starving the Gazans who are not part of HAMAS, and firing rockets from locations designed to maximize noncombatant deaths when Israel bombs those locations. EVERY SINGLE DEATH in Gaza which is not from natural causes is caused by HAMAS. The only way the suffering in Gaza and in Israel will end if if HAMAS is defeated. Anything less is a victory for HAMAS and confirms their tactic of maximizing suffering on both sides of the conflict in order to get what they want. HAMAS is not even trying to hide the above facts. They are on record as saying they want MORE GAZAN DEATHS because the tsunami of lies about Israel and specifically about Israel’s alleged “genocide” is bolstered by images of dead Gazan children and women. And yes, Bernie and other otherwise reputable leftist are repeating HAMAS lies and taking them as truth. The same project which brought us trans women competing in women’s sports, the cancellation of people who speak the truth about sex and gender, and racist “anti-racism” has been promoting the unholy alliance between naive leftists and Islamists in demonizing Israel. Qatar has poured literally $billions into that tsunami of lies and in subverting previously reputable organizations to support and repeat that tsunami. Somehow those leftists seem to have forgotten how that unholy alliance between socialists, communists, and Islamists worked out after they got rid of the Shaw of Iran and replace him with the murderous Ayatollah. Every non-Islamist member of that alliance was summarily murdered by the Ayatollah’s military. The same fate awaits you, Grant should Islamists succeed in their larger project of total world domination.

    4. Mehdi Hasan is a slippery Islamist who would argue for the other side if Israel was Muslim and Gaza was Jewish. The ONLY reason he condemns Israel is because he is for Islam and Islam only. Muslims are not allowed by their religion to side with infidels in any conflict with Muslims no matter the circumstances – Muslim friends have told me that, and you can find plenty of sources for it. And the only reason the current Labor government of Australia now recognizes a non-existent Palestinian state is to placate their angry Muslim base which was brought in en masse by previous Labor governments to create such a voting base for themselves. Now it has become their bed to lie in.

  37. It’s a very good question – but not one I have the knowledge to answer. This overview may help with the discussion, however: https://djhdcj.substack.com/p/recognition

    One thing I might say is that one side probably can’t end this war. It will require both to do so because, while territory is part of the issue, religion and ideology are also prominent. With a physical boundary, one side can decide to stop in place and hold their ground (or give a little). I’m not sure it’s that simple when the dual madnesses of religion and ideology are in the mix.

  38. At this point in history, after Oct 7 and after so many decades of conflict, the time is ripe to remove all Palestinians from Gaza. The two-state solution is dead. Now is the time for Israelis to unite and retake their full country, permanently. No apologies or compromise.

    Otherwise, what — another 50 years of bombings and terrorism?

  39. Jerry, the premise to any answer to your question must be the following:

    Many people fail to comprehend the nature of the beast that is Hamas. It is a terrorist death cult. It celebrates and encourages ‘martyrdom’ of its men, women and children, and therefore has no qualms about using them as ‘human shields’. It chooses death over life, as their imagined ‘afterlife’ and its rewards are revered more than life on earth. Martyrs reap the highest rewards in that ‘afterlife’, and the families of martyrs are rewarded many times over on earth, with future rewards to be enjoyed in the ‘afterlife’ to come.

    Many people fail to see the Orwellian ‘Hamas-run Health Ministry’ as a propaganda machine. Why are they so willing to accept its pronouncements as truth? What has happened to their critical thinking? Are they so captured by the cult of cultural Marxism with its cracked, distorted lens of ‘oppressor’ vs ‘oppressed’, that they have become unwilling or unable to seek the truth?

    Hamas believes in a ‘one state’ solution, with Israel wiped off the map ‘from the river to the sea’. The children of Hamas are taught to ‘hate Jews, kill Jews’. Make no mistake, Israel is in a battle for its very existence.

    1. Re what has happened to their critical thinking, sometimes I feel like I’m being pecked to death by ducks (no offence meant to actual ducks 🦆).

  40. With regard to your erstwhile friend, it is a commonplace these days for longtime friends to be ghosted, shunned, or otherwise cut off and ostrasized from long-time relationships due to the perception of insurmountable political differences over pseudo-critical issues. The core motivation seems to be an absolute conviction of moral superiority on the part of one party, the “deplorable” beliefs of the other. Nothing to lose sleep over.
    What Israel should do is stay the course, eliminate Hamas, and put the area and its population under more sane government. The Trump concept, which I originally thought to be off the wall, seems actually to be realistic and taking shape: place the territory under a sort of protectorate with the UAE, Egypt, Qatar, Jordan, and/or ?? in charge. First, though, Israel has to occupy, find and kill Hamas, destroy the tunnels, etc. The populace may have to be displaced, and when it returns it should be an Arab minority in its own country. The existing Gazans are too filled with hatred. Gaza could be a Riviera.
    The only assets Hamas now has are the useful idiots in the West who are clamoring to end the conflict before it is brought to an appropriate conclusion.

  41. Jerry, sorry to hear about your friend and colleague.

    Israel is in a no win solution IMO…continue until Hamas is destroyed or surrenders, which I am in favour of, and have the world continue to turn on them, or withdrawal at any point before that and wait for Hamas to rebuild and strike again. I like the idea of bringing more journalists into Gaza. Of course they’d have to find reporters who would be willing to take the risk, so I’d start with the ones who are blaming Israel as they likely feel they are the aggressors and that the Palestinians are to blame for nothing. I’d also bring the leaders of the countries who plan to recognize the Palestinian state in September, into Gaza for an up close look…UK, France, Australia and my home Canada. (Jerry you missed those last two). Canada’s useless Prime Minister made this statement a week or so ago which, although it frustrated me to no end, did not surprise me. During his recent campaign he was asked if he was aware that Israel was committing genocide and Carney’s response was something to the effect, that’s why we have sanctions against Israel.

    I am obviously joking about bringing world leaders into Gaza….in order to make it secure enough, they wouldn’t see anything threatening, but the extent of the tunnels and some bomb-rigged civilian homes might help give them some better insight. But I see no other solution than to start bringing in more journalists. Although as we’ve seen the media are extremely biased, and with Trump supporting Israel, unfortunately, the media will continue to work against anything he supports. As well, with so many countries dependent on Middle East oil, I wouldn’t expect much support for Israel. They have an uphill battle, but that’s nothing they aren’t used to.

  42. Jerry, I wanted to comment specifically on your Question 2 because I can see that it really bothers you, as of course it would.

    Yes it’s possible the event either never happened or, alternatively, that it happened in a way that was militarily justified: the IDF soldiers may have been in reasonable fear of being surrounded and overwhelmed by an angry mob frantic to grab food before their neighbours could… and fired on them to get them to disperse or leave a secure area. If either of these versions is true, then there is no need to feel any dismay. A civilian who threatens an armed soldier in a war zone will get shot. (If the latter is true, it’s a good reason why the IDF should not have anything to do with distributing aid inside Gaza, making sure children and old people get a share. Let the NGOs own this.)

    However those of us who support Israel’s war aims and over-all tactics must allow that it is possible the shootings happened and weren’t justified in the circumstances, whether due to panic, trigger-happiness from inadequate training or moral character in the face of provocation, or malfeasance. (“Thank God. Finally an excuse to shoot some of these assholes.”) Exactly what happened is for the IDF’s Provost-Marshal to figure out and then for the military justice system to adjudicate guilt +/- punishment. What we can’t expect in a war zone is a public trial or any further comment about it from the IDF. Courts-martial (if indeed it comes to one, and not just a summary administrative finding) are always closed affairs. Operational secrets may have to be disclosed, or even withheld from the defence. This isn’t a George Floyd affair where public confidence in the justice system is at stake. Just as civilian prosecutions must be in the public interest, a military prosecution must be in the Nation’s interest, carefully considered. The Nation’s interest may require that enemy civilians get the short end of the stick, if vigorous prosecution for soldierly crimes against them would corrode morale and combat effectiveness. We do count on soldiers to kill instantly and with fighting spirit and initiative when we tell them to. But the soldiery must see that they are under discipline and for Israel especially, the optics are important. Tough call.

    Here’s where the distinction between a war crime and a crime in war becomes important. If somebody did anything wrong in that episode in Gaza, it is a crime in war. Individual soldiers or small groups commanded by junior officers violate their military rules of engagement and kill people they shouldn’t (or rape them or rob them.) That doesn’t implicate Israel or the IDF any more than George Floyd’s death implicated the United States or even the Minneapolis Police Dept.

    A war crime by contrast is a state offence. The national leadership takes on a plan to commit crimes against humanity and they write their military rules of engagement to make these actions legal and mandatory for their troops under their national law. “You shall kill anyone who looks like the enemy, armed or not, under all circumstances wherever you find him, including queuing for aid handouts, sparing no one. This is a lawful order which you must obey.”

    There is not the slightest evidence that Israel is doing anything remotely like a state war crime in Gaza. That would, I suppose, be something that would make me abandon Israel after all these years, but I don’t see Israel being able to do that as a nation, even if some Israelis might support the idea. Every society has some people like that. The job of politics is to keep them away from power.

    I don’t know what happened in that episode. The IDF will investigate and do something about it. It won’t satisfy those who say the soldier(s), or Benjamin Netanyahu, should be shot by firing squad just because. But even if those soldiers murdered those civilians in cold blood, it doesn’t change anything. Israel is not committing a war crime and doesn’t suddenly not deserve to defeat Hamas as if she were, just because her soldiers committed a crime in war. (And we don’t know what exactly happened anyway, let’s not forget.)

    1. “Yes it’s possible the event either never happened or, alternatively, that it happened in a way that was militarily justified: the IDF soldiers may have been in reasonable fear of being surrounded and overwhelmed by an angry mob…and fired on them”
      Leslie, I don’t know if you’re familiar with or are a fan of Dan Senor’s “Call me back” podcast, but the episode entitled “From famine to statehood” posted to YouTube July 28, 2025 addresses this issue directly. It’s Dan with the Israeli journalists Nadav Eyal and Amit Segal. Beginning at 18:27, Nadav Eyal describes what he saw on video and explains the scenarios that gave rise to these shootings. I consider these 3 to be reliable sources. I’m sorry I’m not able to post the link here. I alerted Jerry to this explanation via email. Much to his exasperation, I’m able to send such links via Google apps, but am too technologically inept to post them to WEIT. I don’t know what your opinion is of these journalists, but have a look.

      1. Thanks Debi. Their commentary was informative. I’m glad I tried to elaborate on the import of the various possible explanations for the shootings before hearing a credible account of what seems to have really happened. My point was to provide a framework for how Israel’s friends abroad could process reports of events like this in general, regardless of the justification in any specific case. I’m trying to get at the difference between battlefield crimes committed by soldiers and war crimes committed by the state. And of course blameless shootings by soldiers surprised by a wall of people running at them up a narrow street in the pre-dawn darkness.

  43. Any peace settlement must include a condition that all Hamas members must go into exile and never return to Gaza or the West Bank. I assume that Iran is the only country that will take them.

  44. Sadly, the only viable solution to achieve the most essential of Israel’s aims for the war (the elimination of HAMAS as the defacto government of Gaza) is to complete the military occupation of Gaza and kill every active HAMAS operative and anyone who owns a firearm. I agree that getting the hostages released is a very long shot. Israel tried offering a huge reward to any Gazan who returns a hostage and has found no takers. Thanks to 18 years of indoctrination, virtually everyone of military age (defined by the HAMAS war criminals as age 12 to 60) in Gaza is now a HAMAS supporter. Just as it took two nuclear explosions to convince Japan to abandon its racist project of total domination of Asia, it will take a massive military effort involving the deaths of many more non-combatants (most of whom may well still be HAMAS supporters) to wring a surrender out of HAMAS. Regardless of what it takes, however, the death toll in the years following a successful campaign to free “Palestine” from Islamist terrorists, will be vastly lower than if that campaign fails. Even if the Islamists ultimately succeed in eliminating Israel (an actual genocidal project of which they are very proud and determined to complete) that will not bring peace, instead it will bring about the re-establishment of something like the ISIS Khaliphate with all the bloodshed of ethnic minorities and any Muslims who dissent in any way from the local version of Islamism’s dogma. Sunni Islamists will still be massacring Shia Islamists and vice versa. HAMAS murdered hundreds maybe thousands of PLO or PA supporters and there is every reason to believe the internecine wars among the various Islamist groups will not just continue, but become more deadly with the unifying focus on genocide against Israel off the agenda. Ultimately, Islam is kind of the poster child of the harms a universalizing religion can do to its members and to everyone else that religion can get close to.

  45. Late to this one since for a change I came in early this morning.

    I don’t see that Netanyahu has much choice. With someone in charge less dedicated to continue the war, the situation would be right back where it was, but with one difference – I think the rockets aimed just in the general direction of Israel would become drones – and lots of them – aimed at specific targets.

    So for that reason, moving the entire population elsewhere may be the best solution for anything that will last, but hardly a good one. I don’t think that most understand that Egypt doesn’t want the Palestinians. A way of making that more apparent to everyone could be a great help to the overall perception of the situation by people far removed from it.

    But then there’s the question of where to move them, and I have no ideas there. Sudan doesn’t seem like a serious idea, with everything going on there.

    Bottom line of my attitude – Hamas started it and knew exactly what they were starting. They didn’t attack a military target, they savagely attacked a more or less mini-Woodstock where the people were trying to bridge the gulf between the two sides. And all of this has been going on for my entire life (I’m the same age as jac) over a country the size of New Jersey vs. a place the size of Philly. I’d like for it not to continue for my kids entire lives.

  46. I gave the perfect solution on this website on October 15, 2023 — before the land operation:

    “ I would offer $ 10000 to every Palestinian to move to another Arab country -there are more than 20. That’s cheap, about 23 billion -1% of the cost of the war in Afghanistan-, and many countries can contribute. Or the value of 23000 human lives, if you think that a human life is about $ 1 million -it’s probably more, and it’s likely that 10s of thousands will die or get severely injured in the next few months. I know it’s a crazy idea, but nobody has a better one.”

    See comment # 19
    https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2023/10/15/a-few-thoughts-on-the-war/

    I don’t understand why the Israelíes never tried to do something like that. Tens of thousands of lives could have been saved, and more than 100B dollars.

    1. Isn’t the question more whether any Arab country would take them. Wouldn’t this be viewed as admitting defeat, or even collaborating in ethnic cleansing?

      These countries’ actions in keeping the people they got in 1948 as special “hereditary refugees” seem to indicate that keeping the issue alive is important — more important than the welfare of the pawns. Has that changed? Maybe it has, post-Abraham accords.

  47. At the very least, I would continue the war for as long as there are living hostages. After that, I would focus on 1) containment 2) smitten any attempt of Hamas or any other Israel hating group to form any kind of organized government.

    After that, it is the palestinian people’s responsibility to eventually abandon their desire to erase Israel, and the moment an organized group arises within Palestine that could take over (and does not want to eliminate Israel), Israel should support them.

  48. Ultimately, any assessment of Israel’s actions and any prescription for how it should act in the future depends on how you view the conflict. Here, it seems just about everyone falls into one of two camps:

    [1] Israel is engaged in a dispute with a dispossessed people over land that historically belonged to them, and who have been repeatedly oppressed and humiliated by the Israeli state.

    [2] Israel is engaged in an existential conflict with religious zealots whose ambition is the destruction of Israel itself and the annihilation of Jews.

    People in either camp find the opinions of those in the other camp incomprehensible—and even evil. If you belong to the first camp, there can be no justification for Israel killing Palestinian civilians—even in the face of violent provocation from groups like Hamas—because Israel bears the ultimate moral burden. Under that view, Israel’s right to exist is questionable, and the country should be doing everything it can to appease a downtrodden people it has oppressed for so long. If you belong to the second camp, the stakes are much higher, because the conflict is in fact a war between civilisation and barbarity. Under that view, the destruction of Hamas is an urgent priority—even if Hamas does everything it can to maximise civilian casualties.

    Like almost everyone one, I think one of those views is more-or-less right, and the other is outright delusional. You can figure out which camp I’m in from the fact that I have no intention of unsubscribing from this website.

    1. The starting point to me has to be to let the international media in. Israel is losing/lost the propaganda war hamas has created. Unfortunately hamas have played it well and allowing the media in should help counter that across the various international stages. Until then, any actions or suggestions made by Israel are playing into the hands of hamas.

    2. Like almost everyone one, I think one of those views is more-or-less right, and the other is outright delusional.

      What confounds me is that one side doesn’t only get it slightly wrong, they somehow get reversed.

      Which group has genocidal intent?
      Which group attempted ethnic cleansing?
      Calling murderers in Israeli prisons “hostages”.
      Calling hostages kidnapped on Oct. 7 “prisoners”.

      The list goes on and on.

      “Antisemitism is always a means rather than an end; it is a measure of the contradictions yet to be resolved. It is a mirror for the failings of individuals, social structures, and State systems. Tell me what you accuse the Jews of—I’ll tell you what you’re guilty of.”

      ― Vasily Grossman, Life and Fate

  49. Why did your colleague unsubscribe, since by his own admission he finds some stuff here interesting? Because you disagee on one topic? What sort of reaction is that? Is there a significant number of people with whom he agrees on everything? What happened to “agree to disagree”. Of course, people want to prevent actions they see as bad, so I can understand saying that they’re not in favour of supporting someone with whom they strongly disagree on an important topic. But subscribing is not supporting you in any meaningful way. Those who cut off the discussion (in general; of course, there is a time and place for everything and highjacking and off-topic stuff should be avoided) are usually those who realize that their own arguments are not valid, whether or not that realization is consciousness. If the topic is so important, surely their goal should be to convince other people, and that can take place only through discussion.

  50. The main problem with people who claim that Israel is committing genocide is not the evidence or the definition, but rather the fact that they almost never acknowledge that genocide is a goal of Hamas.

  51. I’m laughing because it looks by the time stamps on these comments that I’m not the only one who can’t get to sleep for my life! This is night two for me. Insomnia bites, but misery loves company.

  52. Israel’s actions were necessary in the interests of national security. Israel is a state with the right to defend its borders. Hamas is a non-state militant terrorist group. The two-state solution is dead in the water. In my view, the solution is for Gaza to be swept clean, Hamas permanently neutralized, and the remaining civilian population resettled in an Arab country. France and the UK can fund the resettlement. Buy the land and help develop it.

  53. You know you are in the right, Jerry. Your friend is mistaken. If he chooses to distance himself from you that is his decision, his loss. You may feel sad about that, but it is hardly your job to change your position to suit him.
    Hamas brought this upon themselves, and also upon the innocent people of Gaza—deliberately. “For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.”

  54. Your friend’s rejection is surely deeply painful, I am so sorry. But like many others here I think you speak with truth and compassion about this issue, and that you should hold fast.
    (PS There are so many excellent points made here. I am saving this conversation to look back on for intellectual ammunition.)

  55. I can’t recall whether a reader sent this, or it’s higher up in this thread, but here’s a video by John Spencer who is, by the way, not Jewish. On Triggernometry he dispels some of the lies and misconceptions that people and the press have picked up on.

    I’m stopping comments now as it’s time to move on.

Comments are closed.