Israel did not send a representative yesterday to Barcelona to take part in an EU-sponsored event bringing together foreign ministers and diplomats from the EU countries and the Arab world.
As such, it missed out on hearing EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell deliver a speech addressing the Israel-Hamas War. It really didn’t miss out on much, however, because Borrell’s speech was a predictable rehashing of old shibboleths and tired slogans that are irrelevant in a post-October 7 Middle East.
Had an Israeli representative been on hand, here is what he or she might have responded:
Borrell: “Nothing can justify the indiscriminate brutality Hamas unleashed against civilians on the 7th of October, but one horror cannot justify another horror.”
While at least Borrell did not try to rationalize the October 7 massacre as did UN Secretary-General António Guterres, who said the attacks “did not happen in a vacuum,” the second part of his sentence – about one horror not justifying another – is problematic.
That’s like saying the Nazi atrocities did not justify the Allies laying waste to Germany during World War II – killing millions of German civilians in the process. Wrong, the Nazi evil did justify the horror inflicted on Germany, because were the Nazis not defeated, Europe would have been enslaved, and tens of millions of more people would have been killed.
If Hamas is not roundly defeated, Islamic Jihadists in the region and around the world will be emboldened, Israel’s place in the region will become wobbly, and hundreds of thousands of people are likely to die in regional and jihadist wars.
Further, don’t equate the horror of a savage attack on civilians, with the defensive action of trying to eradicate the terrorists so they can’t unleash that type of savagery ever again.
Borrell: “The suffering of the civilian population of Gaza, depriving them of basic needs, the highly disproportionate death toll, including more than 5,000 Palestinian children, and turning half of Gaza into rubble. Gaza is more or less like Barcelona – 2.5 million [people]. Just imagine half of this city being turned into rubble, in order to visualize what we are talking about.”
It would have been intellectually honest for the EU foreign policy czar to mention Hamas in the context of the suffering of the civilian population of Gaza. For it is Hamas that diverted billions of dollars to build an underground city to protect its terrorists and arms; it is Hamas that built a terrorist command center under a hospital; it is Hamas that indiscriminately fires rockets at Israeli civilians from civilian centers. The blood of those 5,000 Palestinian children that Borrell referenced is on the hands of Hamas, which intentionally put them in harm’s way and built no shelters to try to protect them.
He also falls into the trap of determining morality based on keeping score of how many died on each side, or, as he put it, a “disproportionate” death toll. Following this logic, Germany – which lost between 1.5 million to 3 million civilians killed during World War II – was the aggrieved party in its war against Britain, because “only” 67,000 British civilians were killed in that war.
As to Borrell’s asking his listeners to compare Gaza with Barcelona and imagine half of Barcelona in ruins, that would – of course – be easier to do if one could picture terrorists firing missiles into southern France from Barcelona’s Basilica de la Sagrada Familia or using the Barcelona Children’s Hospital as a base of terrorist operations.
Borrell: “Now we have a recent agreement on a four-day truce and the release of civilian hostages. This is an important first step. We appreciate the role of Qatar, Egypt, and others in achieving it, but much more is needed to alleviate the dire situation in Gaza and to find a way out of the current crisis.”
Borrell's genuflecting before Qatar is a mistake
While Qatar deserves credit for helping to bring about the release of some of the hostages, Borrell’s genuflecting before them – and he is not the only one – is a mistake.
Qatar is – and has been for years – Hamas’ key diplomatic and financial backer. It needs to be called out for what it is: a long-time enabler of an evil terrorist organization; the arsonist who brings a water hose to put out the fire he started.
Borrell: “The pause should be extended to make it sustainable and long-lasting while working for a political solution.”
This sentence is self-contradictory. A long-lasting pause right now – a permanent cease-fire – would leave Hamas still standing, and a still-standing Hamas would make any political solution impossible.
Hamas wants to eradicate Israel, and its actions on October 7 show that this is not just a talking point but rather a plan of action. As long as Hamas remains a major player in Palestinian society, there can never be a political solution with Israel. The political solution it wants is the eradication of Israel, something in which Israelis are uninterested.
Borrell: “The violence spread by extremist settlers in the West Bank, many times under protection from the Israeli police and military, does not make Israel safer.”
EU, US officials referenced violence by extremist settlers
Ever since the October 7 massacres, both EU and US officials have referenced violence by extremist settlers. Settlement violence is deplorable and morally wrong. Full stop. No one has the right to take the law into their own hands.
But the inclusion of settlement violence in the context of Israel’s war against Hamas smacks of virtue signaling, of saying, “Okay, the Palestinians have their extremists who commit violence, but so do the Jews.”
Yes, both societies have extremists. It’s just that in Palestinian society they have variously been given the airplane or have hijacked it and are flying the plane with little noticeable objection by any of the passengers, many of whom are actually applauding them.
In Israel, however, violent settlement extremists are a fringe minority, overwhelmingly denounced not only by society as a whole, but also by the vast majority of those Jews living in settlements.
Borrell: “The settlements are Israel’s greatest security liability.”
Huh? One could argue that Israel’s greatest security liability is having two organizations dedicated to its destruction – Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon – sitting on its border within spitting distance of the Israeli communities that they want to invade.
One of the rationales for Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 was that the settlements there were a security liability, that they drained resources and necessitated large army forces to protect them. Remove the settlements, this argument ran, and Israel’s security would be enhanced. Israel’s bitter experience with Gaza since it withdrew in 2005 shows how well that argument played out.
Borrell: “A Palestinian state in Gaza, in the West Bank, and east Jerusalem is the best and only long-term guarantee for Israel’s security. There will not be peace or security for Israel without a Palestinian state.”
Here we go again with all the renewed talk about a two-state solution, not only in Brussels, but in Washington as well.
A Palestinian state is a guarantee of Israel’s security only if such a state is willing to live in peace alongside the Jewish state. But there has been no indication over the last 75 years to lead anyone to believe that this would be the case.
There is no empirical evidence to convince Israelis that what the Palestinians want is just a state of their own. There is, however, abundant proof – including what happened on October 7 – indicating that what they are truly interested in is that the Jews don’t have a state of their own.
How does that now trendy chant at rallies in North America, Europe, and Australia go: “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free” – and Israel obliterated.
Unless the ideology changes, until generations are educated toward peace alongside Israel, until terrorism and “martyrdom” are not applauded but denounced – there is no reason to believe a Palestinian state will enhance Israel’s security.
Since Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, the Palestinians have had a mini-state in Gaza. Israelis all saw on October 7 how that worked out.
The two-state solution is an idea whose time might come, but not for the foreseeable future. While it is understandable why diplomats like Borrell want to keep the idea alive – to keep alive some kind of “diplomatic horizon” for the Palestinians – they should at least be honest and say this will not be a state like all other states, but rather one upon which there will be considerable limitations and restrictions.
First, it can only come into existence following a de-Hamasification process in Palestinian society. Second, it will have to be demilitarized. Third, Israel will have to retain overall security control.
Otherwise, no Israeli government in the foreseeable future will agree to such an idea, partly because the trauma of October 7 will haunt this country’s leaders for many, many years to come.