Israel, once again

a futile post

There is not much point in writing about Israel. People are dug into their positions. This essay is not an attempt to persuade. It is an outlet for my frustration.

I see three possible long-term outcomes. Emphasis on long term. I am not talking about the many possible short-term outcomes, including the outcome of the current war in Gaza.

The first possibility is that Israel eventually loses. Call this Holocaust II. The result would be that the Jews will be murdered and/or expelled from the Middle East. This is the outcome that many of Israel’s enemies have hoped for since before the state was declared. Many hope for such an outcome now.

A second possibility is that Israel eventually wins. The result would be that Israel no longer faces significant armed threats. I think that a necessary condition for this is the fall of the mullah regime in Iran. It also requires Israel and its allies to develop the capability to suppress and disarm the various factions that are determined to achieve the first outcome.

A third possibility is that the current enemies of Israel modify their position and permit Jews to live in their state in peace. Call this the “two-state solution,.” All of the moderates and elites in the West assume that this is achievable. Many of them would rather blame Israel’s government rather than the intransigence of Israel’s enemies for the non-viability of the two-state solution.

I am pessimistic. Frank Furedi recently wrote,

Those who refuse to publicly acknowledge the challenge posed by advocates of Islamist ideology believe that appeasement is the most sensible way of dealing with it. In reality they are guilty of morally disarming society and undermining the capacity of the public to deal with a real threat to their way of life. It is only a matter of time before many of Britain’s schools will be caught up in a battle for the soul of young children and the challenge of protecting the young from the influence of Islamist idealogues could no longer be avoided. That is why we need to talk about Islamism and use the I word. Such a discussion would help clarify the distinction between Muslim and Islamist and help focus attention on those who are intolerant of the values and ways of Western society.

He argues that Western leaders are fearful and craven. Given this state of western leadership, I would characterize Holocaust II as the most likely outcome, and the probability that Israel wins is less than fifty percent. The chances of a durable two-state solution are even more remote. Again, these assessments are for the long term.

I would be more optimistic if the elites and leaders of Western countries had the ability and willingness to stand up to the combination of barbaric thought and action. The barbaric thought comes from the social justice activists, but they are not organized for violence. The barbaric action comes from Islamic radicals. Put the two together and you get Queers for Palestine. You get anti-Israel activism on campus, where the social justice activists promote decolonization theory and where foreign students bring threats and intimidation against Jewish students and openly advocate for Holocaust II. And you get left-of-center elites unwilling to confront either the social justice activists or the Islamists.

Israel’s strategy is to try to fend off Holocaust II until one of the other outcomes becomes possible. Israelis have lost hope in the two-state solution until there are signs that Israel’s enemies are ready to abandon their hope for Holocaust II.

I see the role of the world’s moderates and elites as very counterproductive. When moderates equivocate, as in the recent U.S. abstention on a UN Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire, the result is to demoralize Israelis and reward Hamas and other intransigent enemies.

If you think—as I do—that Israel’s Islamist enemies are as bad as the Nazis, then the moderate position is just plain immoral. At best, the moderates are prolonging the current conflict. At worst, they are increasing the likelihood of Holocaust II.

In 1940, many Americans had mixed feelings about Great Britain. A lot of people thought poorly of the Empire. Once the U.S. entered the war, there was strong disagreement between American and British military strategists. Americans just wanted to defeat Germany as quickly as possible. The British wanted to fight in ways that would shape the postwar world and to preserve their empire.

But American leaders did not call for the British to elect a new government. FDR demanded unconditional surrender from Germany, not a ceasefire to allow humanitarian aid.

If I were in charge of U.S. policy, my focus would be on getting Hamas to surrender. It is Israel that wants to save Palestinian civilians and Hamas that wants to sacrifice them. The logical inference is that the most humanitarian outcome for civilians in Gaza would be a swift, decisive victory for Israel.

I cannot stand the moderates who oppose Israel seeking a swift, decisive victory. Again, I am writing this essay not to persuade, but to express my frustration.

substacks referenced above:

@

A Fear That Dare Not Speak Its Name