Waltz with Hamas
The following guest blog is by Nathaniel Berman who is a professor of International Law in New York City.
American Jews have recently been consuming two sets of images about the use of Israeli military, the artistic and the real. On the one hand, we are flocking to see “Waltz with Bashir,” and leave confirmed in our horror at past atrocities, compassion for the soldiers whose leaders placed them in an unbearable situation, and admiration for the Israeli artists who have produced such a deep moral reflection. We stand vicariously with the 400,000 who in 1982 demonstrated to protest the massacres at Sabra and Shatila. On the other hand, we have watched on our screens the all-too-real invasion of Gaza. We have wrought our hands at the civilian deaths, including the hundreds of children, and yet, with very few exceptions, we have raised no voice in protest. It is “more complicated than before,” we think; the “missiles were unacceptable,” we reassure ourselves; “something had to be done,” we conclude – as though “something” always means a maximal military operation against a densely populated region, as though we were not given the exact same justifications in 1982, as though the massive civilian deaths were not fully predictable in each such operation. And we flock to “Waltz with Bashir,” warming ourselves with moral sentiments, exiting with solemn faces and pious hearts.
We cannot wait another quarter century for “Waltz with Hamas.” The time has come for all supporters of Israel to firmly and publicly express their views about the morality of military operations like Lebanon 1982, Lebanon 2006, and Gaza 2009. We cannot continue to hide behind the need to “rally behind the nation at war” and wait for calmer times for sentimental moral piety. We need to take responsibility for the content of the “something” that “needs to be done,” and not plead that we “had no idea” that so many children would be killed. We need to examine the full range of options available to Israel to deal with a threat like Hamas rockets, including diplomacy, negotiation, economic and political cooperation, and more limited military operations. Those of us still hold to moral and legal norms governing warfare must make our views known now, before another round in which the “nation at war” makes many reluctant to speak out, and renders inaudible those who do. Those of us who maintain the unacceptability of any operation that produces dead, wounded, and traumatized children in their hundreds must act now – long before any new such operation is planned, let alone executed. It will by then be too late. This kind of action must never again take place. Not in our name.
Maybe *you* say to yourself “something must be done” and are naturally inclined to ‘rally behind the nation at war’. The rest of us realize that there is no country in the world that would allow continuous rocket attacks against its civilians from another entity.
You can sit in your warm, comfortable office in NYC and say that Israel shouldn’t have done anything, but it has no legitimacy. Are you living in fear of a rocket killing your children when they’re at school? Are you hearing the air raid warning signals and huddling in bomb shelters?
Economic cooperation with Gazans will never be politically viable when rockets are flying. Israelis aren’t ever going to be inclined to trade and allow capital to flow into Gaza as long as there are rockets. Why? Because no country is ever willing to give of its resources to something that is continuously attacking it. Name one example where a nation attacked responds by saying ‘let’s work together economically!’ Please. Seriously, I want to believe that this answer is viable, but all evidence points to the contrary.
Diplomacy is only viable when there is something to negotiate with. Hamas had expressed no interest in negotiating anything with Israel until after the military operation.
The military approach used in Gaza may or may not have been the best one. I’m personally of the opinion that the ground invasion was a horrible idea. Most of the International incidents and civilian deaths were the result of the ground invasion. Whether or not the approach used was effective will be determined by history. But any reasoned discussion of the subject agrees that some form of military action was needed.
The next time you decide to write an op-ed on this subject, try being agnostic to the subject before you start. It’s the only philosophical approach that is fair.
Prof.-
Last I checked, it wasn’t in our name. Last I checked, no one is telling you not to speak your mind. And last I checked, Kari is right; sitting and writing from your New York office does not make you an expert on reality. You are a Professor of Int’l Law so therefore you will know that no binding Int’l Law exists in today’s world. I don’t like what Israel did as much as the next Liberal Jew. But what are they going to do? The radical 10% will always determine what the rest of the population must suffer through; you need not look past the ultra orthodox to see this is true in our own community. There is no question that Israel could have done a better job at fighting back, but should all the blame be placed on its shoulders? Take a step back and look at the entire situation; you are only looking at it through eyes of a cartoon waltz.
What incentive can you give to an enemy whose stated goal is your complete destruction?…other than disappearing? As far as aid is concerned, Israel already supplies Gaza with electricity, fuel, food, medicine….and Hamas targets the crossings where this aid enters the strip. Nu?!?
I am not just replying to instigate or be obnoxious, I honestly want to hear your suggestions on what “the full range of options…including diplomacy, negotiation, economic and political cooperation, and more limited military operations” might look like? As far as I know, there has been use of all of these avenues, to one extent or another, with the foremost diplomatic and political attempt having been Israel’s insistence that Hamas renounce terror, acknowledge Israel’s right to exist and abide by all previously-negotiated agreements between Israel and the PA. They were given a “chance” just like Iran is now being given a chance by Obama. I hope you check the talkbacks and reply.
Kari, this type of comment is tired. Plenty of us — the writers, editors and fans of Jewschool — live in Israel, have lived in Israel, will live in Israel. We’re in touch and fans of the Israelis who were against this war, the human rights orgs who were holding Israel accountable to it’s own founding principles and doing our best to communicate that message to the States. What Nathaniel Berman has said differs nothing from what is being said in Israel, in Israeli publications, and at Israeli coffee shops.
And please, get your facts straight:
Hamas offered a continuation of the ceasefire, but Israel declined. You might believe opening Gaza to food and medicine were bad terms, but you cannot say that Hamas did not negotiate.
It was pretty clear that Meshal, from the comfort of Damascus, announced that Hamas had no intentions of renewing the ceasefire. The several dozens of rockets daily corroborated this sentiment. What about the former Palestinian employee of B’Tselem who was executed by Hamas? So much for human rights…
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1232643736968&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
MLK, two things:
1) Was the comment from Meshal’s before or after Israel turned down Hamas’ initial ceasefire offer? Please check your timeline, you’re presenting a factoid devoid of context.
2) Was Meshal the Hamas representative to the negotations? I don’t know, but your factoid is misleading without considering it. It is widely reported that the Gazan Hamasniks weren’t interested in continuing while the Lebanese leadership was rooting them to continue.
KFJ — try responding to the substance of Kari’s comment, rather than just skimming it and kicking out yet another knee-jerk reaction. For someone who thinks that the Palestinian terror attacks can be stopped through diplomatic means, you certainly do a terrible job of having a dialogue with people who don’t share your viewpoint.
Kung Fu Jew, my comment was directed to the author, the esteemed Nathaniel Berman, not you or the blog in general. It’s not personal. I don’t view Prof. Berman as a bad person, and I obviously don’t view this blog as a bad blog (because I continue to read it). I just think his approach to the subject uses a lot of big words but has little logical substance.
I think it’s a reasonable assumption that if Prof. Berman is a professor in NYC he either lives there or in the surrounding area. While I suppose he could have lived in Israel in the past, his current employment logically indicates he does not live there now.
I know you’re in contact with the organizations within Israel that opposed the operation. I still think that anyone is an idiot if they think people should just sit and tolerate hearing rocket sirens every day. (That goes for both Israelis and Palestinians.)
I’m very sympathetic to the significant number of Palestinians who lost family members. I’m also very sympathetic to the large number of people who, even if unharmed, were not able to go about their daily lives for the duration of the operation.
I personally would prefer to see the economic blockade end and pretty much all of the things Prof. Berman suggests. But they’re unrealistic. I tend to be an advocate of a rational expectations approach to policy rather ideological propaganda. It tends to be more effective.
Also, can you cite that Hamas offered a continuation of the ceasefire prior to the Gaza incursion? (Not that there was ever a true ceasefire to begin with as both parties routinely violated it but that’s another matter.)
kari, hamas offered much more than that. they offered a long term cease fire in exchange for a two state solution-
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1035414.html
and we (us Israelis) didn’t sit around and tolerate rockets for 8 years. During those 8 years (before 2009) we killed around 3,000 Palestinians in Gaza. where do you get this odd narative from?
Three cheers for Dr. Berman.
What amazes me most is that American Jews, of which I am one, are usually most astute when it comes to critiquing American foreign policy. And yet, we become blithering idiots as we uncritically accept Israel’s wartime propaganda. People who are extraordinarly sophisticated on other matters, become virtually childlike in their defense of Israeli tactics. If it wasn’t so tragic it would be funny.
Kari, I hear what you’re saying and thanks for sticking with us. Hamas’ offer was more widely reported after Israel started the war: the Independent and HuffPost covered it, among others.
And Kari, Gersh, forgive my knee jerks, they come from a good place, albeit a frustrated place.
To Kari,
“Agnostic” on this subject? Like you? I think there is also historical myopia here. Remember, Hamas was created by and because of the occupation. There was almost no resistance from the terrorists for a full twenty years before the first Intifada. Twenty years of occupation without armed resistance from the WB or Gaza. What did you think would happen? And we too easily forget what Ehud Barak said some years ago, “If I was a Palestinian, I would be Hamas.”
You and oters so easily, and mistakenly, claim how much Israel has offered. Excuse me, but both sides broke the cease-fire many times over. Israelis know this, American Jews refuse to believe it
And we too easily forget Gold Meir’s famous words (paraphrased here), “I don’t blame the Palestinians for killing my sons, I blame them for making my sons killers.” Please consider your tired argument before tossing it out in response to a thoughtful and well-formulated piece. We are becoming killers, Kari, K.I.L.L.E.R.S, and not ONLY because of the Qassams but also because we have been occupying a people for over forty years and have done very little to end this. As Khalil Shakaki the Palestinian pollster wrote, The IDF didn’t even officially recognize the Palestinians as a people until the early 1980’s. Let’s have some perspective.
“they offered a long term cease fire in exchange for a two state solution-”
the problem with this statement is that they did not offer PEACE, an end to violence and incitement, perhaps a slight revision of the HAMAS charter, reconciliation with their own people, normalization of relations, etc. for israel, another “hunda” is not enough incentive to change the nature of the game. besides, Hamas is not in control of the WB so how are they a legitimate negotiating partner on issues regarding the WB? Israel will never leave security issues to a terrorist organization seeking to suppress freedom of religion/expression–let alone Israel’s destruction. there is no one-sided “solution” here, this is why there is a peace “process”…. it’s not, give us give us give us or else we won’t change. you have to prove that you will change in order to achieve results.
another (larger) problem is the belief that there is any diplomatic or political process with Hamas. There is none because engaging them gives legitimacy to their rule over Gaza and their RIGHT to be in control. The only reason they are the de facto party in charge is because of the violent coup they waged against their own brothers (Fatah) in 2007. Based in the “democratic” elections, they are only supposed to have a majority, not carte blanche to throw their opponents off the tops of apartment buildings. Their modus operendi is unreasonable demands, denial, resistance, demand, resist, cry about the zionist aggression, and demand some more. Hamas “leadership” are only in a position to do more harm to the Palestinians and their cause by continuing to deny, deny, deny. If they were truly interested in any kind of productive progress they would take a long, hard look at their own policies and what it has brought upon the ordinary citizens of Gaza, then try something different. Of course, sane people recognize that their motives are clearly stated and backed up by actions. Anyone who grants legitimacy to Hamas and their tactics is a disgrace.
MLK:
the problem with this statement is that they did not offer PEACE, an end to violence and incitement, perhaps a slight revision of the HAMAS charter, reconciliation with their own people, normalization of relations, etc. for israel,
Sounds like serious issues which require long, intensive negotiations. Fatah changed their charter and renounced terrorism as a result of negotiations. Maybe Israel should engage in said negotiations instead of relying on the military option to magically convert extremists into pacifists.
another “hunda” is not enough incentive to change the nature of the game.
But it will prevent Israelis from dying from rocket attacks and provide the window for serious negotiations.
besides, Hamas is not in control of the WB so how are they a legitimate negotiating partner on issues regarding the WB?
Not sure anyone suggested that, but, yes, eyes on the ball, people.
Israel will never leave security issues to a terrorist organization seeking to suppress freedom of religion/expression–let alone Israel’s destruction.
They have with Fatah.
there is no one-sided “solution” here, this is why there is a peace “process”… it’s not, give us give us give us or else we won’t change. you have to prove that you will change in order to achieve results.
Now you’re talking. Bilateral negotiations is the only way. Of course with Hamas I might need to begin championing tri-lateral negotiations.
another (larger) problem is the belief that there is any diplomatic or political process with Hamas. There is none because engaging them gives legitimacy to their rule over Gaza and their RIGHT to be in control.
Israel has always negotiated with Arab aggressors. That how we got peace Egypt, Jordan, Fatah, the PLO, the first Hamas ceasefire…
The only reason they are the de facto party in charge is because of the violent coup they waged against their own brothers (Fatah) in 2007.
Only a partial disagreement here: Israel strengthened Hamas by handing them the Disengagement on a silver platter, instead of bilateral negotiations to Fatah and/or a unity government. That, and Israel turned down peaceful overtures by Hamas in 2006. I wonder how different that might have been.
Based in the “democratic” elections, they are only supposed to have a majority,
From whence the quotation marks? They won 40% of the vote legitmately, the largest party.
not carte blanche to throw their opponents off the tops of apartment buildings.
I wholeheartedly agree.
Their modus operendi is unreasonable demands, denial, resistance, demand, resist, cry about the zionist aggression, and demand some more.
You forgot shooting rockets. They were doing that since before the Disengagement, and in fact after Disengagement the rockets were fewer.
Hamas “leadership” are only in a position to do more harm to the Palestinians and their cause by continuing to deny, deny, deny.
The Palestinians deserve a lot better, yes. We should support policies which promote diplomacy. Bombing them, I feel, is very convincing in the opposite direction.
If they were truly interested in any kind of productive progress they would take a long, hard look at their own policies and what it has brought upon the ordinary citizens of Gaza, then try something different.
They gave it a shot in 2006 and 2008. Bad results.
Of course, sane people recognize that their motives are clearly stated and backed up by actions. Anyone who grants legitimacy to Hamas and their tactics is a disgrace.
Nobody is granting legitimacy to Hamas’ tactics, but some of us are interesting in truly stopping them.
Nahman — I would consider myself having started with an agnostic premise to the situation, yes.
For the first 20 years of the occupation, the idea of Gaza being returned to Egypt and the West Bank being returned to Jordan seemed a real possibility. Egypt and Jordan had laid claims on those areas and Israel had realistic reasons to return them
And uh, oh, that’s where your post starts to diverge from a reasoned, if weak argument into a bunch of logical fallacies.
I don’t think I ever claimed that Israel has offered ‘much’. I think I specifically said that I felt Israel wasn’t offering enough by stating thgat the economic blockade is a problem that, ideally, should be addressed. I also explicitly stated that both Israel and Hamas violated the ceasefire routinely.
Can you cite where Golda Meir said that? It sounds a lot like another quote often attributed to her, “I don’t blame the Palestinians for killing my sons, I blame thme for making their sons killers”. I’m skeptical about the validity of either quote simply because of lack of confirmation that either was actually her speaking in either case.
So I think the obvious question to anyone who is actually paying attention to this discussion is:
Did you even read my post?
Your post seems to be so bizarrely out of touch with what I wrote that I’m seriously worried you’re not even responding to the right blog.
I could accept predetermination by thinking time doesn’t exist, we just become aware of what has already come to pass. When Abraham was given a covenant, shoah had already happened. That, and ever-warring sons, he must feel God pulled his ankle real bad.
Regarding Golda Meir quotes:
Even smart people say stupid things from time to time. And when everything you say is recorded, and then mythicized, your words and legacy can be twisted by contemporary forces. There is a truly vile quote attributed to Golda Meir that has been widely circulated in viral emails:
“We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot fogive them for forcing us to kill their children.We will only have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us…”
I don’t know if she said this. But if she did, I would like to think that she would have a more evolved and humane view today. The people who circulate this, true or not, should be ashamed.
Spence, i think you are mistaken. Our minister of Interior, Meir Shitrit, was sent BY ISrael to do advocacy in Belgium, and he said that he would be using Golda’s statement.
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3656928,00.html (i could only find the hebrew version)
I guess that means that our government should be ashamed of itself for circulating this?
This discussion has veered away from alternatives towards bickering over facts. History implicates both parties, though, who can deny that Israel possesses the greatest ability to affect change. It’s a given that Hamas can do alot, but not as much.
Therefore, to the original point, their are many alternative policies Israel can pursue,from a more restrained military operation, to energetic diplomatic and economic cooperation.
Even if Israel had no choice but to carry out the Gaza operation in this manner, why have the diplomatic initiatives been so much weaker? The pre-conditions that Israel insists upon for negotiation are precisely the points that Hamas intends to discuss. Accepting them would leave Hamas unarmed in talks, and they know it. Hamas’s support has only grown. As Israel relies more heavily on military means Palestinians, rationally, will do the same, believing that their is no partner for negotiations in Israel. (we should ask ourselves if this is true, whether because of pathetic leadership, or a fractured political system. Who leads Israel?)
Here is my two cents: first, the military desperately needs cohesive civilian leadership to define its objective (“deterrent” is a short-term, vague goal). Second, diplomatic initiatives need the same energy level as Israel’s military operations. Third, Israel needs to take some responsibility for the death and destruction done to the civilian population and work more effectively towards rebuilding the devastated Gazan infrastructure.
We would all like for Hamas to take the first step, but since we can affect the greatest change, we should instead.
Yael, there are lots of heros and lots of ignominious figures on all sides of this sad story. And sometimes one can become the other.