I'm writing this to article my feelings and perspective about the current situation going on between Israel and Gaza. After ruminating on it for a few days, I think my opinion on the very recent events is fairly measured and straightforward. However, it has elicited deeper feelings and questions about my Jewish identity, the need for a Jewish homeland, and how we can determine the proper residents/possessors of a territory.
I have done some considerable research before writing this, so I am confident in the legitimacy of the statements I will present as factual. If I am expressing an opinion or am unsure about the factual validity of a matter, I will try to clearly say so. If something is stated as fact and you believe it to be incorrect, please let me know. Additionally, feel free to challenge any conclusions I draw based on those incorrect facts (or accurate facts, if you think the reasoning is invalid). I am someone who is open to changing their opinion when presented with new facts, so I invite fact checking. But I did want to note that I verified what I am saying.
I'm going to start with some definitions because there are specific terms that are often conflated and misused in the discourse surrounding these issues. Some will be overly simplified, but I will refrain from introducing my own judgement into this portion.
Definitions
Judaism/Jew/Jewish - Judaism is hard to define exactly because it really is both a religion and ethnic group. There are certainly spiritual, ritual, and moral aspects of Judaism that are akin to those of a religion; however, Jewish tradition also exists in a more cultural and traditional sense like in an ethnic group. The Jewish diaspora has been proven to have trace genetic elements in common that confirm an common ethnic ancestry in the ancient region of Canaan.
Jewish Diaspora - Jews not living in a Jewish state (at any point in history)
Canaan - I think this term wouldn't normally come up in this discussion, but I will use Canaan to refer to the general geographic territory that includes Israel's modern borders as well as Palestinian Gaza and West Bank. This is meant to be a neutral term to refer to the geographic region without implying that it inherently "belongs" to any group (even though many have reigned over it throughout recorded history).
Israel - A sovereign democratic parliamentary nation, formed in 1948, which serves as a homeland to Jewish people. Jewish religious leaders, including those of the ultra-orthodox/highly observant sect, have significant input and influence over legislation, policy, and action. It's shape, size, and population are almost identical to New Jersey.
Palestine - Historically, Palestine is a small region roughly located where the current Gaza strip is. The name is ancient and derived from the same etymological root as the "Philistines" from the bible. Indeed, the Philistines occupied this region in the biblical era; however, the current Palestinian culture/ethnicity/population refers to Arabs who migrated there during the expansion of the Islamic Empire. Presently, Gaza and the West Bank are recognized as Palestinian territories.
Gaza - Gaza or the Gaza Strip is a territory roughly the same area as the city of Philadelphia, but with about 30% more people living there. It is extremely densely populated, and half of the population is below the age of 18 (compared to a worldwide average of roughly 25%). Gaza is surrounded on 2 sides by Israel, who has built security walls around the shared border, limiting movement in and out. The small southern side of Gaza shares a border with Egypt. The final side of Gaza abuts the Mediterranean Sea.
West Bank - The West Bank is a Palestinian territory much larger than Gaza that cuts into Eastern Israel. Though it is to the East of Jerusalem, it is called the West Bank because it abuts the western bank of the Jordan river.
Jerusalem - Israel's capital city. Jerusalem has historic and religious significance to Jews, Christians, and Muslims. It was initially built as the epicenter of Judaism during the biblical era. Much later, under Roman rule, it is where significant events from the life and death of Jesus took place. It is also home to one of the holiest sites for Muslims. This is all within a square kilometer of each other in the Old City portion of Jerusalem. It is also a major metropolitan center. The border of the West Bank cuts through the Old City, and the Jewish and Muslim holy sites fall on the Palestinian side.
Zionism - the belief that there should exist a Jewish homeland (anywhere - not necessarily Israel/Canaan)
Hamas - Hamas is an organization that has governed the Palestinian citizens of Gaza since the late 1980's. They were initially elected, but no real elections have occurred since then. Hamas's founding documents include explicit references to the eradication of the Jewish people and they fundamentally disagree with Israel's existence. Hamas has led direct and indirect assaults at Israel periodically over the last several decades. Their allies include Afghanistan, Iran and Syria. They have been designated as a terrorist organization by several western nations. Note - Hamas does not control the West Bank.
Benjamin Netanyahu - Israel's prime minister for the last 14 years. He actually held the office in the 1990's and was ousted for corruption. Netanyahu has leaned more right wing over his term, as he has taken a more aggressive stance against recognizing Palestinian authority in the West Bank, catered more to the ultra-orthodox bloc, and reduced the checks and balances of the Israeli government. He had very low approval ratings from the (generally liberal and secular) Israeli population prior to the recent Hamas attacks, and they have remained low in the aftermath.
IDF - Israeli Defense Force, the Israeli military. All Israelis (except the ultra orthodox) have mandatory military service after high school. They also remain as reservists after their initial active duty is complete. Any Jewish person in the world is eligible to become an Israeli citizen, but it comes with registering in the IDF reserves. Some in the Jewish Diaspora volunteer for IDF service.
Hezbollah - An Islamic extremist political organization and paramilitary group from southern Lebanon. They periodically launch attacks into northern Israel and have been deemed a terrorist organization by several western nations. Their allies include Iran, Syria, Iraq, North Korea, and Russia.
What's Happening Now?
On Saturday October 7, 2023, Hamas launched a surprise attack on Israel. They invaded towns and bases near Gaza, brutally killing hundreds of civilians, police, and IDF soldiers. They have also been launching intermittent rocket and artillery strikes on Israeli cities from inside Gaza. For reference, Gaza is about as far from Jerusalem as Camden, NJ is from New Brunswick, NJ - it is not a vast expanse. In the following days, the IDF has reclaimed the areas Hamas initially invaded and has launched air strikes on Gaza. Tension has existed between Israel and Gaza for decades. In response to Hamas's open hostility towards Israel, the Israeli government has erected walls around Gaza, harshly limiting the autonomy of the civilians within. This also has given Israel significant control over the flow of resources and aid in and out of Gaza. This was arguably a humanitarian crisis prior to 10/7/23 - some have validly referred to Gaza as an open-air prison and the inferior legal status of Gazans as apartheid.
Netanyahu has promised ruthless retaliation against Gaza for the 10/7 attacks. The immediate problem is that Hamas bases its operations out of schools, hospitals, and apartment buildings in Gaza. Therefore, IDF airstrikes against Hamas targets often result in significant collateral damage to Gazan citizens. While Hamas uses civilians as human shields, possibly to garner sympathy from external entities when those shields inevitably are struck, Israel has not demonstrated much care to avoid civilian casualties. The language used by Netanyahu and Israeli military command has been very grave, raising further concerns that Israel's retaliation will come at a significant cost to Gazan/Palestinian civilian lives. Netanyahu has ordered all Gazans to evacuate the northern portion of Gaza so they are not present for an impending IDF ground invasion, meant to eradicate Hamas operatives in the area. Most Gazans do not have the means to evacuate south. The territory is also so densely populated that the south cannot afford to take on the million refugees from the north - remember, this area is only about 25 lies long and 9 miles wide. Even if there was space, there is not enough time to move the sick and injured from north Gazan hospitals to the south. Compounding the problem, Israel has cut off food, water, power, and internet from Gaza.
The Global Response
Several factors have informed the global response to this situation. The U.S. has always been a strong ally of Israel. They are a developed, technologically advanced democracy in a region full of anti-American authoritarian regimes. Israel also has military capabilities that far exceed its size, including a nuclear arsenal (Israel has never publicly admitted to having nuclear weapons, but it is essentially known by all global entities). American Jews, regardless of political affiliation, also often have an extreme affinity towards Israel. I'll get into this more later, but this means that both political parties (in areas with significant Jewish populations) have an interest in expressing pro-Israel views.
This is where things start to get messy. In all of the discourse concerning Israel and Palestine, people tend to gravitate towards extremes. Sometimes extreme situations call for extreme opinions, but this is one where I have observed immense misunderstandings and conflation of essential concepts. It is a fact - not an opinion - that Jewish people (inside or outside of Israel) do not necessarily agree with the Israeli government's treatment of Palestinians. It is also a fact that one can demonstrate sympathy for the civilians in Gaza without expressly or implicitly expressing support for Hamas and it's brutality. You can think that Israel's actions and policies contributed to the violence without leaping to the conclusion that the violence against Israeli citizens is justified or righteous. Likewise, you can simultaneously believe that Hamas is a deplorable terrorist organization that warrants a military response while also recognizing that many Gazans do not agree with Hamas's actions and do not deserve to be harmed in that military response.
In the first day or two after the attacks, it seemed that anything but unequivocal support for Israel and their right to respond with proportional or disproportional force was seen as endorsement of Hamas's attacks and a hatred of Israel and Judaism. From the other side of the political spectrum, it seemed that any sympathy for Israel (even their citizens) or criticism of Hamas was taken as endorsement of apartheid, colonialism, and ethnic cleansing. These views aren't necessarily problematic because they are extreme. Rather, they are inherently flawed because they conflate the interests of Israeli civilians with the policies of the Israeli government; they conflate the interests of Gazan civilians with those of Hamas; they assume that all Jewish people innately support Israel; and they imply that disagreement with Israel's policies is equivalent to prejudice against Jewish people. These are all false equivalencies that all serve only to inflame, mislead, and divide us in an already difficult time.
It's very unclear where things will go from here. As I write this in the evening of 10/13/23 (EDT), Netanyahu continues to threaten his ground invasion of Gaza and demand that Gazans evacuate Northern Gaza. The UN and WHO have declared a humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Egypt expressed initial ambivalence towards allowing Gazans to flee through their southern border into Egypt; however, it seems an Israeli air strike damaged the border checkpoint, resulting in Egypt closing the border. Most Western countries are showing staunch support for Israel and are, at minimum, implicitly endorsing Israel's military response. Some, including the US, are sending warships into the Mediterranean Sea to "show support," though direct military assistance has not been offered or requested.
Tensions within the Middle East are as high as ever. According to US intelligence Iran was surprised by Hamas's 10/7 assault, despite Iran's historic support and financing of Hamas. Iran may use this as an opportunity to advance their position in the region, as the stated goal of their religious leader is to wipe Israel from the face of the earth. Prior to 10/7, Israel was engaged in diplomatic negotiations with Saudi Arabia to thaw their icy relationship; however, Saudi Arabia withdrew from those talks when Israel threatened Gaza. Hezbollah has joined in on the direct assault on Israel by shooting rockets and artillery into Israel's northern region from southern Lebanon. This may be opportunistic or a deliberate effort to stretch IDF resources across two fronts.
***UPDATE*** It's about 24 hours after I wrote the above paragraphs and I'd rather just do a little update than rewrite them. The formal ground invasion of Gaza has not yet commenced. Israel gave Gazans a little more time to evacuate the north and identified 2 safe routes that would not be targeted by air strikes. Iran and Syria are now threatening or even preparing to get involved, while the US and other Western allies are threatening to intervene if those countries proceed.
You've stated a lot of facts with minimal analysis, anything substantive to add?
I think the current issue is fairly clear cut: Hamas is an antisemitic terrorist organization, and their attack on Israeli civilians was irredeemable. Their interests do not represent those of all Gazans, and Gazan civilians should not pay the price for Hamas's transgressions. Israel's government has treated Palestinian's poorly for decades, and it is hard to argue that their subjugation of Palestinian's in the 21st century is anything but apartheid. However, Israeli citizens do not deserve to pay the price of their government's transgressions, and brutal incursions against civilians are not justifiable responses to oppression/means of achieving peace. I don't think Hamas cares about peace, as they are religious extremists who hate their oppressors on a more than political level. I think Israel's government and military are extremely callous towards Palestinian's to the point of reckless indifference towards their safety. Since they are presently in the dominant position, they would accept peace, but not if it means making any concessions.
I think most people who want to publicly opine on this matter should verify the factual bases of their arguments before opening their mouths/pressing send. American Jews need to seriously evaluate whether the internal fondness they have towards Israel outweighs the objectively oppressive acts they see the Israeli governments commit. They should try to but their biases aside and ask why Palestinian civilians who garner no hatred towards Israel should be killed. Anti-Israel Americans should take a careful look at their condemnation of Israel and evaluate whether wanton assault on civilians is truly a reasonable way of achieving peace. They should evaluate whether Hamas is really trying to achieve peace and, in my opinion, conclude that you can support the Palestinian cause without supporting Hamas or calling for Israelis to die.
It's hard to describe the relationship American Jews have with Israel. From a young age, you are told that it is a homeland for people who are just like you. You learn that Israel has always been attacked by its neighbors, but has always come out on top through military superiority and raw effort. You learn that the US is Israel's most important ally. You learn that Israel's existence is necessary because of historical persecution of Jews. You don't learn much about the people who were there when the pioneering Zionists first showed up. You are always told that Israel is your second home and if you go there, you will feel like you are at home. You go there with a bunch of other Jewish kids, a significant social and spiritual rite of passage. You study Hebrew and Israeli history in Hebrew school. You are told that it is a great mitzvah (good deed) to move to Israel and live on a commune or join the IDF. These things are not all bad or invalid by any means. I don't want to disrespect the beliefs of my fellow American Jews, who I truly do feel some sort of bond with. I feel enriched by my Jewish upbringing and education. I enjoyed my trips to Israel - I felt like a tourist there and it is a wonderful country to tour. I like my Jewish American identity. Unrelated (I assume), I developed critical thinking skills. I feel comfortable questioning the acts both of my country (the USA) and the country I was raised thinking I should unconditionally support (Israel). It's very simple to me and I am frustrated when I see other American Jews making arguments that seem so flawed with bias.
Before this, I didn't talk about Israel a whole lot. It doesn't come up too much unless I am talking with my family, who are pretty staunchly pro-Israel like many Jewish Americans. In other contexts, if it comes up, I will say that I believe Israel is a lovely place with a rich history and vibrant culture, but it is incredibly poorly governed and its treatment of Palestinians is unjustifiable. I do believe that all to be true. I don't know if I've really articulated it until writing this, but I have also always felt that Israel deserves to exist, despite its flaws. That is the specific matter that I have been thinking long and hard about over the past week, and it's what I'd like to try to suss out in the rest of this piece.
What makes a nation legitimate?
This is surely something that scholars, or maybe even Poli Sci 101 students have a variety of good answers to. We didn't talk about this in my Poli Sci 101 class (on any date that I decided to show up to the lecture), so I'm gonna shoot from the hip with some theories. Specifically, I seek to answer what gives a particular group (ethic or otherwise) a legitimate claim to sovereignty over a territory. Some ideas that are involved in the Israel debate and that I made up myself are
1) Who was there first? How far back should be look?
2) Can the various entities who have claims to the territory reach a mutually agreeable solution?
3) Is a third party able to review the circumstances and select a sovereign? Who has to consent to their determination?
4) Is military acquisition legitimate? What happens after the fighting?
5) Is there a "moral" reason for one group to own it versus another? If so, whose set of morals should be applied?
Historical Inquiry
While I don't necessarily think that the "who was there first?" inquiry is the most legitimate solution, I'm going to address it first so I can explain the history of the territory called Canaan - the land which Israel and Palestine both assert claims to. I think discussion of the other points will be more fruitful with the added historical context.
The bible (only referring to the old testament here) is mostly anachronistic and historically false. However, some of the lands, kingdoms, and people depicted in the bible are supported by historical evidence. Most of the bible refers to the "Hebrew people" or "Israelites" and their trials and tribulations in and around the land called "Canaan." Canaan was a real territory, documented by various civilizations such as the Mesopotamians and the in the middle/late Bronze ages - or approximately 1500 B.C.E. Canaan consisted of what is roughly the current borders of Israel plus the West Bank (along with some of the Sinai peninsula). The earliest documented history of the region was when the Egyptians occupied it when their empire reached its widest extent. During the general global turmoil at the end of the bronze age (1200-100BCE), the Egyptians withdrew from this region and the native groups resumed control. In Canaan, the aptly named Canaanites settled the land and built small cities. In the area now known as the Gaza strip, a group called the "Philistines" established themselves. The surrounding areas, now known as Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq all also experienced development, but I am focusing on this particular sliver of the middle east for now.
In the bible, the Abraham became the first Jew in ancient Canaan after communing directly with god. One of Judaism's defining characteristics, according to the book of Genesis, was its strict adherence to monotheism. Eventually the Jews or Hebrew people, descended from Abraham, flourish, are subsequently enslaved by Egypt, escape slavery, and fight their way back into Canaan, wresting it back from the native polytheists. There is no historical evidence of any of this. In fact, there is historical evidence that contradicts most of this. There is no real historical record to support the existence of Abraham and his direct descendants or the Exodus story. Further, instead of the notion that the Jews fought their way into Canaan in a hostile takeover from the Canaanites, there is ample evidence that the Jews were simply an offshoot of the existing Canaanites that cohabitated with them peacefully. Judaism at this point didn't necessarily involve strict monotheism - rather, they recognized the pantheon of various gods that the other Canaanites worshiped, but solely worshipped their chosen god.
After this is where the bible starts to roughly reflect recorded history. In the early Iron age (1000ish BCE) the Jews formed two distinct kingdoms - Israel and Judah - in the territory that somewhat overlap modern Israel and West Bank, but extend more to the North and West and less South. The
Philistine kingdom still remained distinct in terms of territory and culture. In the bible, the lands of Israel and Judah were portrayed as a united kingdom of Jewish people, but they truly were distinct sovereign entities. Though it is somewhat confusing, the Judans are the group that modern Jews and Israelis trace their roots to, while the ancient Israelites are not. The expansion of the Babylonian empire into Canaan started millennia of turmoil for Jews.
Around 800 BCE, Babylon conquered ancient Israel and in 586 BCE they conquered Judah. By this point, Jerusalem (the capital city of the Judan kingdom) was the main religious hub for Jewish rituals. Traditions such as burnt offerings were still performed by high priests at the Holy Temple of Jerusalem, the most sacred site for Jews. Judaism was more focused on these temple-based rituals and the high priests rather than smaller, communal prayer/worship. When the Babylonians conquered Jerusalem, they razed the Holy Temple and expelled the Jews from their territory. The subsequent period of exile was when a strong Jewish identity developed. Jews had to commune in small groups to pray, as the Temple was no more. Further, this is when monotheism strongly took hold as a central tenant of Jewish belief, possibly in opposition to the polytheistic Babylonians. Monotheistic Judaism was likely also influenced by the ancient monotheistic religion of Zoroastrianism, which began to spread to the near middle east from Persia around this time. It is suspected that the many of the bible stories were conceived at this time and passed down orally to explain the origin of Judaism and instill the monotheistic Jewish identity. During this period, some Jews also began to believe a Messiah would eventually come to lead the Jews to their rightful place in Jerusalem - this belief underlies much of the dispute over the rule of Jerusalem for the remainder of human history until present day.
The Jewish exile from Babylon didn't last too long, in the context of human history - about 50 years after Jerusalem was destroyed, the Persian empire conquered the Babylonians and King Cyrus allowed Jews to return to Judah. Despite the period of exile not being "long," it was still enough to galvanize Jewish cultural and religious identity. The Jews re-developed Jerusalem under Persian rule and constructed a Second Temple at the site where the original Holy temple first stood. Eventually the Persians were conquered by the Seleucids, and later the Hellenistic Greeks followed. Under Greek rule, Jews were treated fairly well and eventually began to assimilate with Hellenistic culture. Radical Jewish factions took exception to this and led violent rebellions against the Hellenists. The Hannukah story actually comes from one of these battles; however, the heroes of that story are not usually framed as an extremist splinter faction. These Maccabean revolts destabilized the region enough for the Hasmonean Empire to take over, followed by the Romans.
Suffice it to say, a lot happened under Roman rule. Romans appointed King Herod to oversee the region they called "Judea," which essentially was all of the Canaan region. Judea flourished under Herod's rule, as his focus was on urban development. Herod died in year 4 BCE, which began a period of unrest between Jews and Romans, as no subsequent leaders of Judea treated Jews as favorably or continued to develop Jewish cities. Historians agree that Jesus of Nazareth was almost certainly a real historical figure, who lived between approximately year 0 and 34 CE. Jesus was a Jew, who accumulated many followers during his life and after his death. Those followers believed he was the Messiah prophesized to return sovereign rule of Jerusalem to the Jewish people. This belief presented threats to the authority of both the occupying Romans and the Second Temple high priests, who rejected the notion of a human Messiah. As such, it is an accepted historical theory that, as described in the gospel, Jews and Romans conspired to arrest, try, and execute Jesus. This led to further destabilization of Roman rule in Judea, the advent of Christianity, and the eventual mistrust of Jews by Christians. Since many of Jesus's major life events are believed to have occurred in Jerusalem, it is considered a holy site for Christians to this day.
By the 66 CE, the Jews in Judea revolted against their Roman rulers. This went poorly. Jerusalem fell into turmoil as it was besieged by the might of the Roman military. In 70 CE, Romans broke through into Jerusalem, slaughtered Jewish resistance and civilians, and burned the Second Temple. To this day, the only remaining ruin of the temple is the Western Wall of the mount the Temple sat upon. This Western Wall remains to be the holiest site to Jews. Jewish civilians and freedom fighters experienced mass casualties throughout the land of Judea between 66 and 73 CE. Jerusalem was eventually rebuilt as a Roman city, provoking the anger of some Jews who were still in the region. This led to the Jews' final rebellion against the Roman's in 132 CE. This conflict, called the Bar Kokhba rebellion, resulted in heavy losses on both sides but ultimately a total defeat of the Jewish rebels. This final defeat started the period of diaspora for Jews until the 20th century. Most Jews remaining in Judea (now renamed Syria Palaestina by the Romans) were expelled, killed, or enslaved. Many initially fled to nearby countries/territories such as Iraq, but eventually spread throughout the civilized world. Some Jews did remain in the Canaan region, under Roman subjugation.
Canaan came to be ruled by the Byzantine empire after the Roman empire fractured. Then the latter half of the first millennium, the Islamic Empire reigned over the region. Caliph Abd al-Malik directed the construction of a grand mosque in Jerusalem, where the prophet Mohammed was said to have landed after his flight through heaven. Thus, the Dome of the Rock was constructed where the Second Temple once stood, just above the still-standing Western Wall of the temple mount.
At the beginning of Islamic rule, Palestine was made up mostly of Jews and Christians. However, the influx of Islamic residents, religion, and culture over time led to the region becoming almost entirely made up of Arab Muslims. The Jews and Christians in the area either left (historians are unsure whether they left voluntarily or were expelled/persecuted) or were assimilated into Arab culture. Arab Muslims remain the majority ethnic group in Palestine to this day, though there is a very small minority of Palestinian Christians and Jews. An analysis of genetic DNA determined that modern Palestinians can trace their lineage back to the Arabs that came to Palestine during Islamic rule rather than the ancient Palestinian people.
During the Middle Ages, Jews spread throughout the world with varying levels of acceptance. Most European countries officially expelled Jews from their borders at some point in history, and Jews were often persecuted in those countries that did not officially ban them. The majority of the Jewish Diaspora eventually was centralized in Eastern Europe - the countries that are now, Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, and Germany. The Jews who settled in this region and formed a distinct subculture and ethnic background are called Ashkenazi Jews. Jewish populations persisted in Southern/Western Europe as well, and Jews from that region are referred to as Sephardic. Any Jews that settled elsewhere in the Middle East/Asia are referred to as Mizrahic Jews. Ashkenazi Jews were almost always isolated from non-Jewish settlements, and intermittent experienced violent attacks called pogroms. Judaism became very insular and populations dwindled during this period, but rebounded after the Europeans Renaissance, when Jews became more tolerated and were allowed to perform work in non-Jewish society. Persecution still remained, especially in Russia, but Jews found the opportunity to assimilate and flourish in Germany, Poland, and Lithuania (referred to at that time as Prussia or Lithuania) among other regions.
Canaan and Jerusalem remained under Islamic rule until the Ottoman empire took power from approximately 1500 through 1917. Around the turn of the second millennium, Christian-ruled Europeans led several crusades to reclaim Jerusalem, which they believed to be their divine holy land. Various Crusades took place over hundreds of years with varying levels of success, but the Muslims ultimately remained in control of Jerusalem. However, some Christians who were devoted to the study and preservation of Christian history were permitted to stay.
In the late 1800's a small subset of Ashkenazi Jews formed a movement that theorized and promoted the idea of a Jewish homeland - these were the Zionists. At first they were not necessarily focused on Canaan, aware that it was under Ottoman control and it wasn't a realistic goal. Argentina was an initial idea and the UK even offered land in Uganda, which the Zionists ultimately deemed unsuitable. But the idea existed and was considered by global powers well before World War 2. In the late 1800s and early 1900's some Zionists migrated to Ottoman controlled Palestine/Canaan. This was not a forcible or adverse claim to the land, it was just a spot that was relatively free from oppression and connected to their Jewish heritage. However, in the early years of World War 1, many Jews were expelled from the land, as they were feared to be Russian spies. During World War 1, the British occupied Canaan (reminder, I'm using this as a general term to describe Palestine + Israel) and the Ottoman Empire dissolved. The British decreed that the territory, called Mandatory Palestine, should belong to the Jewish people and the League of Nations endorsed that decree. At the same time, the Bolshevik revolution occurred, which led to more Jews fleeing to Palestine from Bolshevik persecution. In the interwar period, many European Jews continued to migrate to Israel, as the European economy struggled and antisemitism climbed (particularly in Germany). As more Jews arrived in Palestine, tensions began to rise with local Arabs, who began to recognize their collective Palestinian identity. The Palestinians blocked Jews' access to the Western Wall in Jerusalem and conducted raids on their settlements. This led the Jewish settlers to form a militia and political organizations to lobby on their behalf with the Western nations. In the late 1930's the Arabs revolted against Britain, so in 1939 the British advised that they would accept no more Jewish immigrants.
Part of me thinks that I only wrote about all of this is such detail to delay writing about the Holocaust. By now (2023), the Holocaust is fairly well understood. That is to say, most people know it happened, realize it was an atrocity, and understand that humanity must be prevented from committing such a genocide ever again. The Nazis are remembered as such an unequivocally evil faction that it feels like there isn't even much more to say. We are taught statistics that are so incomprehensible that they become banal. We learn about methods of execution that are so calculated and efficient that they are no longer shocking. It's just something that happened in our history, and is so ubiquitous that jokes about it don't have shock value and analogies to it in arguments are considered stale. I'm trying to write this historical section as straight down the middle as possible - I'm really not trying to spin things in a way that support a particular narrative or conclusion. Maybe my own biases make that impossible, but I am making a conscious effort to minimize it. That said, I will share a couple of statistics about the Holocaust that are maybe less known and stand out to me in particular. First, the world's population has increased by about 4 times between 1939 and today - from about 2 billion people to about 8 billion people. In that same time period, where the overall human population has grown so significantly, the global Jewish population has not returned to its pre-Holocaust level. Not per-capita - the raw number of Jewish people on the planet has still not recovered from the killings that occurred during the Holocaust. The other statistic that most upsets me concerns the proportion of Jews that died. We all have the 6 million figure hammered into our heads, but that's hard to really wrap your head around. Two out of every three Jews living in Europe died during the Holocaust. That includes allied countries (not that there were many Jews there in the first place), so this means that most countries has a much larger percentage of their Jewish population eradicated. In Lithuania, where much of my family is from, 95% of the Jewish population was killed. This occurred despite it having one of the densest Jewish populations in Eastern Europe. The Nazis were able to exterminate the Lithuanian Jews so efficiently because the non-Jewish population assisted the Nazis more so than in any other country. They readily offered up the names and locations of their Jewish neighbors, and the Nazis capitalized on this assistance. As I write this, I worry that it sounds like I am expressing hate for Lithuanians - I don't hate Lithuania. I don't know any Lithuanians. This is just a statistic that I think is very tangible, very fathomable - saying only 1 out of every 20 people survived is more clear than spouting a raw number of people killed. At the same time, I can't wrap my head around it. I can't internalize it.
None of my family (within a reasonable amount of distance) was killed in the Holocaust. Nor are they survivors of the atrocities. All of my European Great Grandparents had the privilege of emigrating to the US in the late 1920's, and had the means to start comfortable new lives. The term Generational Trauma initially seemed like another piece of very 2020's liberal jargon when I first heard it. But as I've thought about it more, I feel like it might be an accurate way to describe my relationship with the Holocaust, even if it is not rational or sensible. The Holocaust is taught heavily in public schools in New Jersey, which I think is important. I also learned about it from an even younger age in Hebrew school, where the teachers were of the generation whose parents were Holocaust survivors or fled Europe immediately prior. It's not a hot take to say that the Holocaust involved the upper extreme of human depravity. I guess I just didn't take it well. I scared easily as a kid, so for all I know I would have felt this way after learning about the Holocaust even if I wasn't Jewish. But it gave me nightmares as a kid. It's maybe cheesy to say, but it hurt knowing that so many people "like me" were killed just because of that sole trait I share with them. To know I would be targeted if I was alive at that time upset me. Again, no hot takes here, I'm not unique for feeling this way, but I need to write it down right now. Anyways, the Holocaust is a serious matter to me, and I think many Jews have visceral reactions to it (rational or not). The point that I'm leading into is that the Holocaust was one of the main justifications for a Jewish homeland following the Holocausts, and continues to be a point of argument.
Following the Holocaust, Jews around the world (now the majority existed in the US or Palestine) pushed for a Jewish homeland to settle the surviving Jewish refugees. in 1947 the UN considered a division of Mandatory Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state. Jerusalem would remain under neutral UN control for all religions to access peacefully. As the UN deliberated on (and eventually voted to pass) the partition plan, the Palestinian Arabs revolted and engaged the Jewish settlements in open warfare. The British withdrew on May 14, 1948 and on the same day the Jews declared independence as the state of Israel using the UN plan as justification. This provoked the Arab countries surrounding Israel into additional fighting. The Israeli military managed to gain the upper hand in this war and entered armistice agreements with its Arab neighbors - Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. Though they signed the agreement, none recognized the boundary as an international border or Israel as a sovereign nation.
Israel expanded greatly in the following years, as Jews from around the world migrated there. After the ceasefire with the Arabs, Israel conducted a mass expulsion of Arab Palestinians within its borders. Eventually, some would be allowed to return, but with no claim to their real or personal property that they owned prior to Israeli independence. Israeli legislation concerning the rights of Palestinians to buy land evolved over time, but Palestinian's rights remained servient to those of Israeli's. This mass expulsion is considered an act of ethnic cleansing, not in the sense that Israel wanted to murder all Palestinians, but in the sense that they wanted to purge Palestinian culture from Israel by removing the people or making it exceptionally difficult for them to thrive. In the 1950's Israel, France, and Britain worked together to fight against Egypt in the Sinai desert and Gaza (who Egypt occupied at this time) - the rest of the world, including the US and USSR, thought this was a bad idea and it stopped. Subsequently Israel began rapid military and technological development. It is theorized that Israel had nuclear weapons capabilities by the mid 1960's. In 1967, Egypt, Syria, and Jordan amassed troops on the Israeli border and the Egyptian prime minister stated that they were about to engage in warfare with the express purpose of destroying Israel. Israel launched a pre-emptive air strike that almost completely neutralized Egypt's air force, giving Israel total air superiority. In the subsequent fighting, Israel routed its enemies, leading this conflict to be called the 6 Day War. Israel gained significant territory, including the Sinai Peninsula, Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights (to the north of Israel on the border with Syria). Following the 6 Day War, Israeli pride as well as antisemitism in the Middle East rose. Terrorism from Gaza increased while the Soviet Union increased efforts to expel its Jewish population. Peace talks, facilitated by the US and UN stalled, in part due to Israeli hubris and Arab insecurity. In 1973, Egypt and Syria attacked Israel in what is known as the Yom Kippur War (as they attacked on Yom Kippur, the most sacred Jewish holiday). Israel held its own in this conflict and gained territory in the Golan heights while losing a small portion of the Sinai peninsula.
More peace talks with various Arab entities ensured as the warring parties agreed to a ceasefire to the Yom Kippur War. Ultimately, peace was truly only achieved with Egypt, who was the first Arab country to recognize Israel as a sovereign nation with a right to exist. Israel also returned the Sinai territory to Egypt. In the 1990's Israel entered a treaty with Jordan, and agreed to withdraw from the West Bank (which would remain a Palestinian territory). However, some Israeli settlements in the West Bank remained and, in recent years, orthodox Jews have expanded settlements in the West Bank in violation of international law. The 1990's seemed like the most promising time for peace (or some sort of formal agreement) to be achieved between all Palestinian factions and Israel, but incompatible interests and stubbornness on both sides led efforts to fail. Hamas was elected in Gaza in 1989, and has launched rocket and suicide bomb attacks at Israel intermittently since its rise to power. After particularly heightened attacks, Israel withdrew its military but constructed border security walls around Gaza. There have been numerous attempts at peace talks and temporary ceasefires, but all have been violated by strikes initiated by each side.
That's more or less where things are at today - a small population of extremist Israelis encroach on the West Bank, provoking Palestinian violence. Hamas launches terrorist assaults on Israeli citizens and Israel responds with air strikes on Palestinian civilians. Netanyahu is a hard headed leader, who is disliked by most of his subjects but feels the need to project power to the world. Some Israelis hate Arabs due to past and present violence initiated by some members of the group, but many don't. Some Arabs hate Jews and Israelis due to past and present violence initiated by some members of the group, but many don't. Some American Jews hate Arabs because they feel a strong connection to Israel and cannot recognize the Israeli government's/military's misdeeds, but many don't. Some Americans condemn Israel as a whole and denounce its right to exist due to its mistreatment of Palestinians, but many don't. And with regard to that last point, I think they are incorrect.
I went into such great detail here because I want to highlight that the present issue is not a matter of "2 groups fighting over a peace of earth because their god told them to." In a minority of cases, such as the Crusades, the focus of the dispute over this land has been purely religious. it has certainly been a factor in the evolving conflict. The early Zionists would not have picked Palestine to settle if it was not historically occupied by the Jews. But I think the conflict in the 20th and 21st century has really been about the right to self-determination, but happens to be split on religious lines and fueled in some cases by prejudice against the "opposing" religion. I think a vast minority of Palestinians and Israelis care about who exactly controls Jerusalem from a religious perspective - they just each want to be able to freely travel and live in a place that they see as their home.
So back to the initial question - Who was here first? I think the historical answer is that the Jews were there first as they branches from the ancient Canaanites in the Bronze age. While "Palestine" existed as a distinct kingdom contemporaneous with the Canaanites, the descendants of the Arab Palestinians who claim the territory now settled the area in the mid first millennium. But to me asking who was there first feels too simple. Though the Jews were forced out by various other entities, Arabs occupied the area for roughly 1400 years before the Jews returned, in some cases claiming it entirely as their own. Both the Jews' and Arabs' claims are valid in my opinion. Their ethnic groups have each possessed the territory for cumulative centuries throughout history.
2. Can a mutual solution be reached?
I think it's been proven that a mutual solution is not going to happen anytime soon. There may have been certain critical points throughout history where the leaders involved could have reached an agreement and convinced their citizens that it was the right decision. Right now, that is simply not going to happen, unfortunately. Yes, Netanyahu and the leader of Hamas and the Palestinian National Authority could all get in a room and talk, but their interests are so vastly incompatible that it would not be productive. I'm not sure what needs to happen to reach a time where that is possible. Maybe we can hope for just the right amount of intervention from the US or other allied nations to calm down the violence and facilitate meaningful peace talks. In my opinion, the right amount of US intervention is trying to firmly persuade Israel to stop subjugating Gaza and Hamas to stop attacking Israel WITHOUT committing actual military assets to the cause (aside perhaps from ships in the region as a symbol).
3. If a mutual agreement cannot be reached, should a third party make the call?
I believe that third party involvement has generally complicated matters in this conflict. Western Colonialism was extraordinarily problematic in many parts of the globe and this is just another example. As with other territories, the British drew lines, hoped the local ethnic groups would be ok with it, and left when the locals were not ok with it. I don't know if the 1947 borders were patently unreasonable, but the fact that Palestinians did not get a significant say in drawing them is a fundamental problem. Britain or the UN could have facilitated talks between the Palestinians and Zionists before World War 1, but this was a more close minded era when the judgment of white western leaders was considered superior to those of non-white, non-western civilians. I don't think, now or ever, a global entity such as the UN is qualified to make the final decision. No such arrangement would be accepted and matters of international law are hard to actually enforce.
4. Is military conquest an acceptable answer?
If the parties cannot come to an agreement and will not accept the advice of a third party, should we just leave it to them to fight it out? Historically, this is how ownership of territory is determined. In the post World War era, open warfare is obviously extremely frowned upon worldwide. We would like to consider ourselves a civilized species that will not wipe itself out by the millions or billions with weapons of war that have far outpaced our ability to survive them. However, there are some parts of the world that we allow to just fight it out, particularly less technologically developed areas that don't have ties to a global superpower. If you don't have nukes or precious resources, we don't care too much if you blow each other up, commit genocide etc. That might be an overstatement but it seems to happen a lot. Israel, however, does have strong ties to many Western nations - the US in particular - and has nuclear capabilities. It could be argued that for moral reasons and utilitarian reasons, the US has an interest in protecting Israel. Obviously, avoiding the loss of life is an extremely high priority. War has never really been possible without massive civilian casualties. For this reason alone, I think avoiding mass violence at all cost is incredible important. Not a hot take of course, but it is my response to what has historically been an appropriate consideration.
5. Is one side objectively right?
As I suggested earlier, the Nazis (the perfect example for an extreme moral dilemma) were obviously the bad guys. They committed aggressive warfare and intentionally slaughtered millions of civilians (including their own) out of pure prejudice. They did this to the point that is negatively affected their war effort and contributed to their defeat. In World War 2, the Allies were on the right side. Hot take. Yes, they killed many civilians in intentional attacks of shock and awe, but the "cause" was objectively valid (not saying they justified the means).
This does not exist in all wars, however much propaganda tries to convince us otherwise. Many are currently trying to frame each side in the present conflict as clearly right or clearly wrong, and I don't think that's the case. Most issues are pretty gray. Of course everyone (on an individual level and cultural level) has a different moral compass. As such, it is not easy (or even possible at times) to make objective moral judgements about warring factions. As always, the Nazis are an easy exception as they violated many universal tenets of organized human civilization with their war crimes.
Conclusion
This went all over the place and came out much longer than I intended. I worked on this pretty feverishly over the last 24 hours. I didn't proofread and made minimal edits.
I regret that this didn't come to a nice neat punchy conclusion, but I don't have one. I'd love to end with an answer for peace, or even a next step but I don't have it. I'd love to determine the perfect social theory for ethnic territory disputes but I wasn't able to get there. I'm being facetious - obviously these are unreasonable goals. I am happy I was able to learn a lot while preparing this and further inform my positions. I am happy I was able to articulate some valid (I think) conclusions. This was a pretty good opportunity to vent a bit about this. I don't think my opinion ultimately matters too much, but I'd be really glad if anyone who reads this learns something and is able to form a more educated opinion of their own.
Comentarios