I agree with you and only wish your explanation could be more widely circulated — but I doubt that the “woke” who chant “From the River to the sea” would pay attention. I also believe those calling on Israel to cease firing should instead be calling on Hamas to surrender unconditionally and release the hostages. If this was to happen, the war would be over in a New York minute.
Brilliantly written and I daresay is almost the exact viewpoint that most supporters of Israel hold.
The “racist, white, settler colonialism" shtick gets too much applause in the Western world. I am not sure it's an exaggeration to say it seems to be the only thing many academics have learned and have been teaching in our universities over the last two decades. But if we ever needed an example of how dangerous such thinking is, the raging hatred for Jewish people of any nationality is certainly the most sobering example I have EVER seen. It's so shocking I am almost unable to process it.
As one Zionist Gentile, thank you, Sir, for this thoughtful discussion.
My use of the word, Zionist? I absolutely believe in the right of Israel to have been created, to continue to exist and to defend itself. I do not believe in the right of Israel or any other entity to "misbehave."
To me, that means that Israel has the right to prosecute the war against Hamas and, unfortunately, that does mean that civilians will be injured and killed. Put simply, if those civilians want to be protected against injury or death then they should leave Gaza. Period. Recognize that those same civilians elected Hamas some years ago so they must be aware of what and who Hamas is.
Finally. Thank you Allan for writing this. A couple of comments for context: Readers may find it interesting to know that when it comes to the word "Zion" the concept of a Jewish homeland is recognized in the Quran and of course, in Arabic ( صهيون, Ṣahyūn). That isn't to say all Muslims accept the concept, but the interpretation of Zionism today in the West is as you point out, contrary to its etymological origin. A fascinating discussion on this can be found in an article entitled: Allah is a Zionist: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/allah-is-a-zionist
I hesitate to open this can of worms, but it is worth noting that we're horrified by the destruction in Gaza not just because we're looking at it through humane eyes, but because the media is selective in what it shows regarding urban warfare. The world is right to appeal to conscience when looking at war - all war - but where were the calls for ceasefire and condemnations when countries (not just the US), angry at terrorists, decimated towns, resources, access to food and livelihoods? Urban warfare dismays us, but so should terrorism. Our interpretations are so often molded by what we're told about by those curating the pictures and telling the story.
Lumping urban warfare together with terrorism on the ground that both are dismaying and produce casualties would, of course, be a mistake. Military strategy strikes military objectives in an attempt to erode an enemy's capacity to resist. Terrorism indiscriminately lashes out to harm someone--anyone, it doesn't matter--in an attempt to terrorize a population. When you fire rockets randomly into an urban area, indifferent to whether your victims happened to sympathize with your political views or not, but simply to create as dismaying a death toll as possible, you cannot masquerade this as military strategy.
Everyone has a stake in eradicating terrorism, no matter what their political sympathies. Even if a terrorist gained everything he wanted, politically, he could never feel safe in this brave new world. Someone could always come along and kill his son or daughter for the sake of political grievances having nothing to do with the terrorist--and how could he object? He helped to authorize the practice. Even for those with no humanitarian impulses whatsoever, logical consistency should tell them that a world in which killing innocent bystanders is accepted as a legitimate expression of political grievance is in nobody's long-term best interest.
While, as I said, I'm no fan of this Israeli government, I think it's very important to keep in mind that the strategies applied to fighting this war (in particular, to targeting Hamas militants) have, by no means been applied randomly. From the beginning of the war there has been considerable discussion about that point and the lengths taken to avoiding civilian deaths -- contrary to Hamas' behaviour. I think it's really hard to analyze what is happening in Gaza and in Israel from here, in the West, if we have never lived through such conflict on our soil and must rely on media reports that frankly are tailored to Westerners' experiences. But then we also can't wrap our brains around (and sincerely hope it stays that way) the horror of having more than 1300 of your civilians slaughtered in a morning invasion (of 9 communities) less than 8 km away from Gaza - and accounts of torture of those who survived. As uncomfortable as the thought is, I'm willing to wager that we would be expecting the world to understand the need for military action if it happened on our own soil.
I quite agree, and did not mean to imply that the charge of indiscriminate killing made against terrorists also applies to military operations, urban or otherwise. If we could put war itself behind us, that would be wonderful; but if we can't, we should at least be able to agree on rules of engagement that avoid unnecessary civilian casualties.
Over the years we've evolved such rules, and people of conscience do their best to observe them. Terrorists, in contrast, deliberately aim to cause civilian casualties and mistreat prisoners. Civilized people everywhere should have no trouble rejecting this: it's a non-partisan issue that doesn't require anyone to choose political sides. It's simply everyone against terrorism and its atrocities.
Until this war is over, I’ll refrain from criticizing Isreal, I feel that living in a country surrounded by people who hate you, and want you washed into the sea warrants a bit more leeway.
So well-written! You balance these complex issues by defining charged terms to more carefully articulate our concerns for other human beings who are impacted on both sides by this war.
Please find a way to give this article more readership. I would also encourage the LINE to publish, as a companion piece, Jared Wesley et al's article on what it means to mitigate polarization through engagement that requires active listening. Your article made me want to read for understanding, and listen to what you had to say.
If a depraved psychopath broke into your house, killed your spouse, and used your children as shields against counterattack; and if the police proposed to drop a large bomb on your house; you would - surely - shout: “Stop! Find a different way.”
The IDF is dropping 2000 lb bombs on children, and you are saying, these “deaths are the inevitable consequences of Hamas’s decisions.”
Israelis are automatons? They have no choice or agency? The bombs fall from the sky “inevitably,” as leaves drop in autumn?
Tom Friedman and others - not antisemites, not members of Team Hamas - are making arguments for finding a different way.
When your logic directs you to justify dropping bombs on children as “inevitable,” is it time to stop and question your thinking?
If anyone is fed up with the language policing articles, and would like a more hard-headed analysis of the politics and history and economics of Israel, historian Adam Tooze does a number of excellent deep dives in his Chartbook substack. Even before Oct 7, the economic, social, and religious divisions created in Israel by Netanyahu’s strategies were harming Israel. For example, Israeli Arabs and Orthodox Jews earn 1/3 the GDP per capita of non-orthodox Jews. Far from being full members of Israeli society, they are a source of cheap labour. It’s not even ethnic or religious segregation: it’s raw economic and political power dynamics creating segregation and fuelling backlash.
It’s important to not just blindly repeat stale platitudes from the 90’s. Israel’s right to exist hasn’t been seriously challenged for over 40 years. Israel has done a bunch of bad shit. For Israel’s own sake, it’s time to grow up and build a sustainable peace. Or liquify the Palestinians. Whatever. Canada has its own problems.
Of course Israel must respond to these attacks, and Hamas are terrorists who must be dealt with.
And any suggestion there's a legitimate moral hierarchy here is false. (and sad)
Given Bibi's perverse incentives in this war, his alignment-of-self-preservation with religious nut jobs, his active support for illegal settlements and settler violence, his enthusiasm for Hamas over the PLO, his lack of interest in governance, I can easily imagine he'd be happy to flatten Palestine, and long before October 7. He's always looked like he needs this job, and to see himself as some kind of saviour. His latest statement about the necessity of Israel remaining in complete control of Palestine is ho hum... sure. It's what he, and the nutters, always wanted.
General Petraeus repeated the idea, during his turn with the Iraq debacle, "we can't create more insurgents than we eliminate as a result of our actions...", expressing some wisdom about the obvious back and forth escalation.
Also, given the above, it's hard to hope the IDF cares about who they kill in the process. Of course they do, or maybe most do, but seriously...
One correction, in paragraph 8; Israel is not bombing hospitals. Otherwise I accept all you are saying. In fact I applaud you’re having said all you did because it is truthful, factual and seldom else expressed. Bravo
I agree with you and only wish your explanation could be more widely circulated — but I doubt that the “woke” who chant “From the River to the sea” would pay attention. I also believe those calling on Israel to cease firing should instead be calling on Hamas to surrender unconditionally and release the hostages. If this was to happen, the war would be over in a New York minute.
Brilliantly written and I daresay is almost the exact viewpoint that most supporters of Israel hold.
The “racist, white, settler colonialism" shtick gets too much applause in the Western world. I am not sure it's an exaggeration to say it seems to be the only thing many academics have learned and have been teaching in our universities over the last two decades. But if we ever needed an example of how dangerous such thinking is, the raging hatred for Jewish people of any nationality is certainly the most sobering example I have EVER seen. It's so shocking I am almost unable to process it.
Nailed it, Allan. Thanks for being the voice of reason as always.
As one Zionist Gentile, thank you, Sir, for this thoughtful discussion.
My use of the word, Zionist? I absolutely believe in the right of Israel to have been created, to continue to exist and to defend itself. I do not believe in the right of Israel or any other entity to "misbehave."
To me, that means that Israel has the right to prosecute the war against Hamas and, unfortunately, that does mean that civilians will be injured and killed. Put simply, if those civilians want to be protected against injury or death then they should leave Gaza. Period. Recognize that those same civilians elected Hamas some years ago so they must be aware of what and who Hamas is.
Finally. Thank you Allan for writing this. A couple of comments for context: Readers may find it interesting to know that when it comes to the word "Zion" the concept of a Jewish homeland is recognized in the Quran and of course, in Arabic ( صهيون, Ṣahyūn). That isn't to say all Muslims accept the concept, but the interpretation of Zionism today in the West is as you point out, contrary to its etymological origin. A fascinating discussion on this can be found in an article entitled: Allah is a Zionist: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/allah-is-a-zionist
I hesitate to open this can of worms, but it is worth noting that we're horrified by the destruction in Gaza not just because we're looking at it through humane eyes, but because the media is selective in what it shows regarding urban warfare. The world is right to appeal to conscience when looking at war - all war - but where were the calls for ceasefire and condemnations when countries (not just the US), angry at terrorists, decimated towns, resources, access to food and livelihoods? Urban warfare dismays us, but so should terrorism. Our interpretations are so often molded by what we're told about by those curating the pictures and telling the story.
Lumping urban warfare together with terrorism on the ground that both are dismaying and produce casualties would, of course, be a mistake. Military strategy strikes military objectives in an attempt to erode an enemy's capacity to resist. Terrorism indiscriminately lashes out to harm someone--anyone, it doesn't matter--in an attempt to terrorize a population. When you fire rockets randomly into an urban area, indifferent to whether your victims happened to sympathize with your political views or not, but simply to create as dismaying a death toll as possible, you cannot masquerade this as military strategy.
Everyone has a stake in eradicating terrorism, no matter what their political sympathies. Even if a terrorist gained everything he wanted, politically, he could never feel safe in this brave new world. Someone could always come along and kill his son or daughter for the sake of political grievances having nothing to do with the terrorist--and how could he object? He helped to authorize the practice. Even for those with no humanitarian impulses whatsoever, logical consistency should tell them that a world in which killing innocent bystanders is accepted as a legitimate expression of political grievance is in nobody's long-term best interest.
While, as I said, I'm no fan of this Israeli government, I think it's very important to keep in mind that the strategies applied to fighting this war (in particular, to targeting Hamas militants) have, by no means been applied randomly. From the beginning of the war there has been considerable discussion about that point and the lengths taken to avoiding civilian deaths -- contrary to Hamas' behaviour. I think it's really hard to analyze what is happening in Gaza and in Israel from here, in the West, if we have never lived through such conflict on our soil and must rely on media reports that frankly are tailored to Westerners' experiences. But then we also can't wrap our brains around (and sincerely hope it stays that way) the horror of having more than 1300 of your civilians slaughtered in a morning invasion (of 9 communities) less than 8 km away from Gaza - and accounts of torture of those who survived. As uncomfortable as the thought is, I'm willing to wager that we would be expecting the world to understand the need for military action if it happened on our own soil.
I quite agree, and did not mean to imply that the charge of indiscriminate killing made against terrorists also applies to military operations, urban or otherwise. If we could put war itself behind us, that would be wonderful; but if we can't, we should at least be able to agree on rules of engagement that avoid unnecessary civilian casualties.
Over the years we've evolved such rules, and people of conscience do their best to observe them. Terrorists, in contrast, deliberately aim to cause civilian casualties and mistreat prisoners. Civilized people everywhere should have no trouble rejecting this: it's a non-partisan issue that doesn't require anyone to choose political sides. It's simply everyone against terrorism and its atrocities.
Whole-heartedly agree. Well said, Mark!
Brilliant and super helpful.
Excellent article.
Until this war is over, I’ll refrain from criticizing Isreal, I feel that living in a country surrounded by people who hate you, and want you washed into the sea warrants a bit more leeway.
So well-written! You balance these complex issues by defining charged terms to more carefully articulate our concerns for other human beings who are impacted on both sides by this war.
Please find a way to give this article more readership. I would also encourage the LINE to publish, as a companion piece, Jared Wesley et al's article on what it means to mitigate polarization through engagement that requires active listening. Your article made me want to read for understanding, and listen to what you had to say.
Well written and a compelling voice of reason amid the cacophony of self-righteous blather.
If a depraved psychopath broke into your house, killed your spouse, and used your children as shields against counterattack; and if the police proposed to drop a large bomb on your house; you would - surely - shout: “Stop! Find a different way.”
The IDF is dropping 2000 lb bombs on children, and you are saying, these “deaths are the inevitable consequences of Hamas’s decisions.”
Israelis are automatons? They have no choice or agency? The bombs fall from the sky “inevitably,” as leaves drop in autumn?
Tom Friedman and others - not antisemites, not members of Team Hamas - are making arguments for finding a different way.
When your logic directs you to justify dropping bombs on children as “inevitable,” is it time to stop and question your thinking?
Just curious—how many subscriptions do we need to drum up before you can afford hire Allan Stratton as a staff writer?
Excellent and thoughtful article, as always.
A nicely put together commentary. However, the rabid Hamas-ians--and those Canadians between the ages of 18 and 35-- are deaf to its logic.
If anyone is fed up with the language policing articles, and would like a more hard-headed analysis of the politics and history and economics of Israel, historian Adam Tooze does a number of excellent deep dives in his Chartbook substack. Even before Oct 7, the economic, social, and religious divisions created in Israel by Netanyahu’s strategies were harming Israel. For example, Israeli Arabs and Orthodox Jews earn 1/3 the GDP per capita of non-orthodox Jews. Far from being full members of Israeli society, they are a source of cheap labour. It’s not even ethnic or religious segregation: it’s raw economic and political power dynamics creating segregation and fuelling backlash.
https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/chartbook-251-israels-national-security
It’s important to not just blindly repeat stale platitudes from the 90’s. Israel’s right to exist hasn’t been seriously challenged for over 40 years. Israel has done a bunch of bad shit. For Israel’s own sake, it’s time to grow up and build a sustainable peace. Or liquify the Palestinians. Whatever. Canada has its own problems.
Of course Israel must respond to these attacks, and Hamas are terrorists who must be dealt with.
And any suggestion there's a legitimate moral hierarchy here is false. (and sad)
Given Bibi's perverse incentives in this war, his alignment-of-self-preservation with religious nut jobs, his active support for illegal settlements and settler violence, his enthusiasm for Hamas over the PLO, his lack of interest in governance, I can easily imagine he'd be happy to flatten Palestine, and long before October 7. He's always looked like he needs this job, and to see himself as some kind of saviour. His latest statement about the necessity of Israel remaining in complete control of Palestine is ho hum... sure. It's what he, and the nutters, always wanted.
General Petraeus repeated the idea, during his turn with the Iraq debacle, "we can't create more insurgents than we eliminate as a result of our actions...", expressing some wisdom about the obvious back and forth escalation.
Also, given the above, it's hard to hope the IDF cares about who they kill in the process. Of course they do, or maybe most do, but seriously...
Some good discussion in these comments. Don't agree with all of it, but its good to see substantive discourse.
One correction, in paragraph 8; Israel is not bombing hospitals. Otherwise I accept all you are saying. In fact I applaud you’re having said all you did because it is truthful, factual and seldom else expressed. Bravo