Six Things I Believe about Israel and Gaza

Trying to find clarity amidst the madness

It has been nearly six months since a large-scale attack in Israel thrust the region into war. I wrote a lengthy, scattered post about it in the early days, reacting to the complexity of being a liberal Jewish person watching Israel descend into chaos and madness.

In the intervening months, some things have become clearer to me, and others remain a muddle. I would like to share my updated observations and perspective, understanding the limits of talking about a crisis in the middle of the crisis.

  1. Netanyahu has to go.

    Until he does, until a new Israeli government takes over, this crisis will never end. There are a number of ways in which he has proven himself to be inept, dishonest, and driven by the need to remain in power. Specifically, his fidelity to the most extreme right-wing voices in his coalition has resulted in starvation, forced evictions, over-the-top violence, and increased settlement activity. He is salting the Earth against a future Palestinian state, and increasingly his bad actions are turning the world against Israel. It is my judgment that his continued leadership poses a greater threat to Israel than Hamas and Hezbollah combined. If Israel loses American support, it will be due to his massive incompetence.

    In a perverse way, Netanyahu has given a gift to his eventual successor. It is highly unlikely his Likud party will remain in power once elections are held, and any new government will appear liberal by comparison. The simple and frankly obvious step of restoring unrestricted food deliveries to Gaza will be seen as benevolent statecraft instead of being the bare minimum the law and humanity requires.

  2. Hamas needs to be defeated from within, and not by Israel

    In the early weeks of the war, Israel’s military demonstrated for the umpteenth time their vast military superiority over Hamas. There is no question that in a fair fight, Israel wins every time. That is why Hamas doesn’t fight fair: they conducted a sneak attack, took hostages, and fled back to within a civilian population. When Israel came after them, they demanded a humanitarian ceasefire, saying that any attempt to come after them would be a war crime because of the presence of civilians. They created the problem, and I have no sympathy for their cries of victimhood.

    The Gazan civilians, however, are victims of both Israel and Hamas. They are caught between a military superpower and a ruthless, frightened faction of armed zealots. Calls from Israel for Gazans to turn against Hamas and overthrow them assume a level of control and volition that simply doesn’t exist; Gazans have no practical ability to challenge Hamas, and won’t have that capability until they are joined by other Arab and Muslim voices and forces.

    Hamas has been negotiating for a permanent ceasefire, and based on its negotiating position, it believes it is winning the war and can remain in power. Israel cannot and will not allow that to happen; no ceasefire will be permanent unless it results in removing Hamas from power.

    In my opinion, the solution will require regional allies to propose an alternative government that is run by Palestinians- not an outside force of any kind- and that has a clear mandate to rebuild, restore order, and negotiate for a permanent peace, not just a permanent ceasefire. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, and Egypt have a role to play here, and they have the financial ability and moral authority to be credible arbiters of an alternative government for Gaza.

  3. Iran’s proxies need to be challenged and defeated everywhere they operate

    Among the only things that Israel is doing right is its targeting of Iranian militia leaders in Syria and throughout the region. Iran is playing a dangerous, destabilizing game. They are trying to take advantage of this conflict to sew regional discord and elevate their own influence. The Houthi rebels, Hezbollah, and the other factions and acolytes of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard must be eliminated from all areas in which they are ensconced.

    Since Iran benefits from the conflict, it will have an incentive to undermine any peaceful solution. Since Israel is so trigger-happy in the wake of the October 7 attacks, it is not difficult for Iran and its proxies to derail any de-escalation by launching missiles, employing snipers, or carrying out terrorist attacks. They must be denounced, attacked, and removed from the areas they claim outside of Iran and throughout the region.

  4. The anti-Israel left still doesn’t have a clue

    My liberal friends continue to consistently disappoint me when they talk about Israel. Just today, I spent part of my morning fact-checking and disputing a meme about how (1) Israel claimed that rapes happened but it was all made up and (2) the IDF shot a pregnant woman after raping her in front of her entire family. Neither of these things was true, but by the time a lengthy thread of comments produced the receipts to dispute them, there were three other memes up, again parroting anti-Israel talking points.

    On a recent visit to see my sister in Virginia, we encountered an anti-Israel march, with chants of “5, 6, 7, 8, we don’t want no JEW state,” emphasis in the original. It is easy to see why protests are the conflict are being conflated with anti-Semitism.

    There is a real and valuable conversation to be had about Israel’s role as a ethno-nationalist state in a region prone to conflict. The reactionary left doesn’t engage with that conversation: they engage in sloganeering, hyperbole, and propaganda. Outrage politics are not constructive, and they have largely had the effect of making the Israelis dig in their heels, as they are seen as proof that the world truly doesn’t understand and doesn’t support Israel’s right to safety.

    If Israel accepted the demands of the left and unilaterally stopped its operations in Gaza, what would happen? Hamas would remain in power, and would plan their next attack; they have stated that October 7 was only the beginning. Since taking hostages proved so effective, we can expect to see more people assaulted and held captive. Withdrawing from Gaza without a plan is no solution, and I am yet to hear a credible leftist proposal for unwinding the conflict in a way calculated to lead to lasting peace.

  5. The UN is causing more harm than it helps

    When Israel accused UNRWA of having ties to Hamas generally, and the October 7 attacks specifically- an accusation UNRWA did not deny- it gave Israel a colorable excuse to cut off their access and funding. This was a distraction that nobody needed, since UNRWA is tasked with providing relief to the very people who are suffering most.

    At the same time, the UN took months before acknowledging sexual violence by Hamas, which they did with such general, milquetoast language that it seemed to be a begrudging acknowledgement in the face of overwhelming evidence, including first-hand accounts.

    The UN resolutions for a ceasefire are a political sideshow, a zero-stakes game that has no impact on the conflict, but gives superpowers the ability to claim they are taking action, when all they are really doing is taking meaningless votes.

    This conflict is beyond the UN’s ability to effect positive influence, and they should step aside and let other actors- ideally led by other states in the region- take the lead in the rebuilding effort.

  6. A viable Palestinian state is still crucial, and is going to require a lot of money

    Now that Gaza has been all but leveled by the IDF, it will require a massive amount of investment in order to rebuild. In my view, if they rebuild it as it was- an impoverished enclave- a major opportunity will be missed.

    Gaza should be rebuilt as an economic powerhouse, with modern construction, dynamic port facilities, and the infrastructure needed to become a regional beacon of development and prosperity. There would be poetic justice in creating an independent Gaza that is the envy of the region, including Israel. Economic prosperity- not subsistence levels of donated food- is the best way to combat extremism in the long-term. This will require a high level of support from the United States- both financially, and in restraining Israel from interfering- as well as other regional and world powers.

    The Israeli voices- a minority for sure, but a loud minority- arguing against an eventual Palestinian state are playing a dangerous game. There are three possibilities that do not involve a two-state solution: a united Israel that does not have a Jewish majority; an ethnically cleansed Israel where Palestinians have been largely killed or deported; or an apartheid state in which Jewish Israelis are the only ones with full citizenship. All of these are unacceptable to me, and I believe would be unacceptable to most.

    Palestinians must be empowered to declare statehood on a viable territory encompassing Gaza and the great majority of the West Bank. In previous times, arguments about the precise borders, whether Palestine can militarize, and other ancillary issues have doomed negotiations to failure. I believe the first step- declaring a state in the areas where there is broad consensus that state should be situated- should not wait on a final, comprehensive agreement to all terms. Independence can build momentum, and the Palestinian people have waited generations for statehood; they should not be made to wait another generation to raise their flag.

~AG

Published in: on April 1, 2024 at 1:39 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , ,

Money Screams

Is money in politics an intractable problem?

Courtesy of my Aunt Mikki, I read a fascinating article today about Lawrence Lessig’s Quixotic quest to bring about an “atomic” change to campaign finance law.  His approach is to help elect candidates pledging to support reform, but as even he concedes, any laws restricting spending are likely to be struck down as unconstitutional.

In my view, the Supreme Court has truly made this an intractable problem.  The issue is very real: in order to secure election, a candidate needs to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for every office.  Senate campaigns require millions.  Presidential races will soon be billion dollar enterprises.

This means, in practical terms, that our representatives are really only part-time public servants.  A large portion of their time must be spent courting donors and dialing for dollars.  This is an acknowledged problem, and a vast majority of us think it should be fixed.  A vast majority of us are also convinced that it won’t be.

Lessig is a great thinker; I most admire his effort to establish Creative Commons to address draconian copyright laws.  He is not a very savvy political operator, and from the narrative it appears the he reached too far, too fast.  Whether his efforts are ever met with success on the electoral front remains to be seen.

I want to address a more fundamental question: if we were able to reform campaign finance, what would the result look like?

After considering the problems and the extreme limitations on any effort at reform, I am most intrigued by a set of rules that would dramatically impair the right to use money on races outside one’s district or state of residence.  It would look something like this:

Only individuals (read: people, with flesh and blood, corporations and other entities excluded) can contribute to political campaigns.  There is no maximum limit on such contributions.  However, individuals can only contribute to races for seats that directly represent them in government, based on their actual residence.  All donations will be a matter of public record.  So-called “issue ads” are entirely permissible, but for nine months preceding an election, they may not use the name or likeness of a candidate.

Here is my reasoning: if we start from the premise that the Supreme Court treats monetary donations as a form of speech, we have to be very careful about restricting it.  Hence, no limit on individual expenditures.  The protections usually afforded by the option of anonymity in speech is in this case trumped by the compelling governmental interest in election transparency.

There is also legal precedent for restricting money-as-speech rights for outsiders.  We already restrict foreign citizens from contributing to our elections.  A restriction barring a Nevada resident from giving money to a Delaware senate race is a reasonable restriction to prevent Sheldon…ahem…said Nevada resident from exercising an undue amount of influence on an election for an office that does not represent him, er, them.

Similarly, these rules address the farcical distinction drawn by the Citizens United decision regarding “coordination” or “direct electoral appeals.”  First of all, I believe the constitutional concerns regarding association and speech are equally present in a rule forbidding “coordination,” if that rule has any real substance at all.  Isn’t engagement and association the backbone of democratic government?  Additionally, permitting ads saying “Senator Such and Such is a terrible human being, let him know!” while prohibiting ads saying “Vote against Senator Such and Such” makes little sense.  Both ads have comparable effects.

Prohibiting candidate names and likenesses while permitting issue ads means that only voters who actually know the issues on some level can be persuaded/manipulated by a high-dollar ad campaign.  The more aware a voter is, the less likely they are to be persuaded by crappy political advertisements.

There are, of course, several downsides to this approach. A billionaire activist could simply overwhelm his local house race under this rule, giving an unlimited amount of money directly to the campaign.  This concern is somewhat mitigated by the transparency rule.  Since the identity of the donor and the amount of the contributions are public, both the media and other concerned citizens could scrutinize these contributions and factor them in when casting their ballots.  “We all hate Mr. Moneybags, he has been a blight on our community, and he’s given a half million dollars to Senator Such and Such” would be an available line of attack, especially on a local level where the big contributors can be quickly identified and assessed.

In large statewide elections, the benefits are limited, and for the presidential election, they are virtually non-existent.  Electoral college reform merits its own full-length article, and would somewhat mitigate that problem.  The biggest impact would be felt in house races, which are already reaching monetary levels that seemed improbable even a decade ago.  This is crucial, because the House is designed to be a representative body for the people.

As I have previously discussed, our districts are too large, and should be made smaller and more responsive to constituent demands.  Fair and transparent elections, and our methods of funding and conducting them, are the foremost constituent demand.

Finally, prohibitions on corporate and entity-level contributions are currently held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, but these donations are anathema to fair elections.  They permit an end-run around transparency laws, and allow the wealthy to funnel donations on a large and pervasive scale.  Simply put, this is a problem and needs to stop.  My hope is that the reforms described above, when considered as a whole, would pass constitutional muster.

I should probably conclude by cynically acknowledging that the likelihood of bringing this type of reform is almost zero.  The reason is that elected officials, with the powers and influence of incumbency, rely heavily on out-of-district and organizational/corporate donations to secure re-election. They are afraid to rely solely on the actual citizens they represent.

Which, when you consider it, is really the core of the problem.

-AG

Published in: on January 9, 2015 at 11:45 am  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , ,