Rockets from Gaza light up the skies and smash into homes in southern Israel. Israel retaliates by bombing targets in Gaza. Protesters in London, Toronto, Buenos Aires, and Cape Town rampage against Israeli embassies.
That is their right. But when they torch Jewish institutions, chant antisemitic obscenities, and molest Jews in these cities, one begins to wonder.
When Turkey denies rights to Kurds, do protesters in Paris attack French citizens of Turkish origin and desecrate mosques? When Russia invades Ukraine, do protesters in Amsterdam attack Russian expatriates and defile their cemeteries? When China rounds up Uighurs for “re-education” or forced sterilization, do mobs in London vandalize Chinese restaurants and assault random people of Asian appearance? When Israel errs, are all Jews guilty?
The question that inevitably arises when debating the Israel-Palestine problem, is “Who struck the first blow?” Did Hamas fire rockets as a reaction to Israeli aggression or did Israel bomb buildings in Gaza because of Hamas’ stated desire to destroy Israel? Which is the chicken and which is the egg?
However, the origin of the problem arose much deeper in the past than the current conflagration. Whether ignorant or enlightened, everyone has an opinion about the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
Each assumes to know where to place the blame. Where, in all fairness, should reasonable people place this blame? In order to make a decision about right and wrong, one has to delve beneath the daily headlines. One has to start at the beginning.
The beginning is the pivotal question in the Israel-Palestine conflict – “Do you believe in the right of the Jews to have a state of their own at the site of ancient Israel?” If your answer is “No,” then you are denying history.
This right of the Jewish people is underpinned in fact. Yes, much of what is written in the Bible is folklore and myth. But Jewish history, from the time of King David, 3,000 years ago, can be supported both by archaeology and written documentation. No one can dispute that Jews have a historical connection to their ancestral homeland, irrespective of whether their immediate ancestors stemmed from India, Lithuania, Morocco, or Ireland.
No one can deny the dispersal of the Jews after the Roman conquest. So, do these people not have the right to return to their historical homeland?
If your answer is still “No,” then, remembering that all of human history is based on one power conquering another, you must consider the question of whether military conquest grants the right to “colonize” conquered territories. If your answer is “Yes,” then Israel has the right to exist by virtue of its military victories in 1948, 1967, and 1973. So, let us conclude that Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state, either as a historical fact or by right of conquest.
Do the Palestinians also have the right to a state in Palestine? “Yes.” They have been there for generations. Some Palestinians can trace their ancestry back to the time of the Roman conquest.
Indeed, it seems that many Jews who remained in Israel after the Roman conquest later converted to Islam. This accounts for the fact that many Palestinians have similar DNA to Ashkenazi Jews. Other Arabs immigrated much later in history from the Arabian Peninsula, recruited by the Ottoman Empire to “fill up” sparsely populated areas of the Holy Land.
Does Israel’s right to the land give it permission to dominate the Palestinians? The answer is an unequivocal “No.” Does the fact of Palestinian legitimacy in the region give it the right to deny Israel’s claims? Again, “No.”
Should not the area of pre-1948 Palestine be divided into two states, two sovereign states living in harmony side by side? Given the facts outlined above, the answer must be “Yes” and this was, in fact, what was offered to the Palestinians as long ago as 1937 by the Peel Commission and by the UN in 1947.
The Arabs rejected the offer on both occasions. War followed in 1948, and then again in 1967 and 1973. In subsequent peace talks in 2000 and 2006, similar partition plans for a two-state solution were close to being agreed upon. However, these ended in the sand because the Palestinians demanded more than the Israelis, the victors of the wars, were willing to concede. Victors have the right to dictate terms. More wars followed.
Does Israel discriminate against and oppress the Palestinians? “Yes” and “No.” Twenty percent of the population of Israel is Palestinian Arab. They are Israeli citizens and, on paper, have the same rights as Jewish Israelis; full and equal democratic rights, including the right to vote for, and sit in the Knesset, the Israeli parliament.
An Israeli Palestinian can, theoretically, be elected prime minister of Israel. Israeli Palestinians attend Israeli universities and contribute, in vast numbers, to professions such as medical doctors, nurses, and pharmacists. But they, nevertheless, suffer discrimination, which is rather more socially based than politically mandated.
Few would, however, dispute that Israeli Palestinians, especially women, have greater rights, more freedom and vastly more opportunity than the citizens of most Muslim countries and certainly more rights than Palestinians living under the leadership of Fatah and Hamas in the West Bank and in Gaza, where democratic elections have not been held for years.
Is Israel’s current bombardment and incursions into Gaza justified, or is it an overreaction?
What we witnessed on October 7 is, without doubt, the worst attack against Jewish civilians since WWII.
The scale of atrocity is beyond imagination – not simple shootings, but throat cutting, beheadings, burning alive, rape, hostage taking, displaying victims publicly as war trophies. The victims include babies, children, and old people.
Statistically, what happened on October 7 is ten times worse than 9/11. On 9/11, there were 3,000 victims among 300 million Americans, which is 0.001% of the population. On 10/7, there were 1,500 victims among nine million Israelis, which is 0.01% of the population. It’s difficult to overreact to that.
One way of looking at the situation is that Hamas is not only holding Israelis as hostages, but they are holding the entire population of Gaza hostage as well. They knew that Israel would react the way they have, and they knew that their own people would pay the price.
They knew that Israel would be made to look as if they were nonchalant, brutal killers of civilians, and bombers of schools, hospitals, and mosques. Israel went after Hamas with ground forces in Gaza in the three previous wars. They stopped before crushing Hamas because of unacceptable casualties and pressure of world opinion, especially from the US.
Israelis consider that the result of not completing the task these previous times, is what we have seen this month. They conclude now, that they have to eliminate Hamas, whatever the cost, even if it means killing Palestinian civilians and endangering the Israeli hostages.
Is it acceptable to kill civilians in order to achieve a military goal? The Israeli thinking here is, if we are forced to kill their civilians in order to save ours, then yes.
Historical precedents
Is there a precedent for this? Yes, the carpet bombing of cities like Dresden and Frankfurt by the Allies, and the use of the atomic bomb by the US against Japan in WWII, are pertinent examples.
This approach was much debated both then and now, but in the end, it achieved the intended goal – peace. The destruction of Hamas cannot be achieved without enormous destruction and losses on both sides – and even then, Hamas, or its credo, will arise again in another form. It could also mean the re-occupation of Gaza, which the Israelis neither want nor need.
It should be added that many believe that Hamas and the other organizations supported by Iran are totally uninterested in a Palestinian state. Their ultimate aim is a caliphate encompassing the entire Middle East and beyond.
The writer, a retired surgeon, is the author of the novel He Does Not Die a Death of Shame, set in apartheid-era South Africa.