The cacophony is deafening but unnecessary
It is hard to make good sense of the varying perspectives on the Gaza war. Let me try to suggest they need not be so cacophonous.
Israel and the United States are diverging
The dissonance between Israel and the United States is get louder. They agree on the war objective of destroying Hamas in Gaza, whatever that means. But President Biden is pressing Israel to allow more humanitarian aid, protect civilians, ease the crackdown on the West Bank, and agree to turn over Gaza eventually to a renewed Palestinian Authority. Biden is also worrying out loud about declining international support for Israel and about the extreme nationalists in Israel’s right-wing government.
Prime Minister Netanyahu will have none of it. He wants Israel to be responsible for Gaza security after the war and to conduct a deradicalization operation, whatever that is. The Prime Minister claims Israel is already doing everything reasonable to allow humanitarian assistance and to protect civilians. He is uninterested in bringing the Palestinian Authority into Gaza and is continuing the crackdown in the West Bank. He hopes to stay in power, at least so long as the war lasts. That will make it last longer.
Arab disharmony
This is not the only disharmony evident around Gaza issues. Arab countries are anxious to signal support for a ceasefire in particular and Palestinians in general. But they in fact have done little to pressure Israel or Hamas for one. The Abrahamic accords remain in place and the Arab signatories (and possible future signatories) are not doing anything to limit Israeli economic and military capabilities. Nor is there any sign they are helping to block Hamas from resupplying.
Gaza has split the Arab world. Syria, Hizbollah-conditioned Lebanon, and Houthi-ruled parts of Yemen are trying to aggravate Israel’s challenges. Iran is supplying and cheering them on, thus prolonging the agony of the Gazas the “resistance axis” claims to support.
Others would be happy to see the destruction of Hamas, which is especially non grata in Egypt and the UAE. Those two countries loathe Islamist politics, especially the Muslim Brotherhood version from which Hamas descends. Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and even Qatar don’t want to see Hamas win and thereby seize the banner of Palestinian liberation.
Even within Israel and in the West Bank, there are conflicting Arab views. Some Palestinians within Israel came to the aid of Jews on October 7. In the West Bank, however, Hamas has gained support.
American Muslims, Christians, and Jews
Inside the United States, there is growing discomfort among the majority of Jews, who lean heavily Democratic, with Israel’s conduct of the war in Gaza. That contrasts with the Christian right solid support for Israel. Liberal American Jews largely agree with American Muslims on a ceasefire and on a two-state solution. The vast majority of American Jews differ from more radical Muslims and supporters who are pro-Hamas or oppose the idea of a Jewish state.
Harmonizing
The cacophony is unnecessary. Here are a few propositions that many would support:
- Hamas has proven itself devoted to mass murder of civilians. Disempowering it is vital, though its Islamist ideology will survive.
- The current conduct of the war is not the only way to disempower Hamas and does not appear to be succeeding. It is killing a disproportionate number of civilians relative to modest military accomplishments.
- Israel should end the military attacks and hunt Hamasees responsible for the October 7 murder and mayhem individually. Many Arab states would be prepared to cooperate, quietly, in that effort.
- A massive relief operation is already needed for Gaza. The requirements will increase once the war stops. The US, Europe, the Gulf, and Israel need to prepare to meet those requirements.
- American and Israeli Muslims, Christians, and Jews should unite in supporting humanitarian assistance and reconstruction.
- Governance of Gaza after the war will be an enormous challenge. If it is not met, guys with guns, many of them former Hamas, will run local protection rackets, trade in drugs and other contraband, and continue to attack Israel when the opportunity arises.
- Chaos of that sort on Israel’s border is in no one’s interest, especially Egypt and Jordan (because of the likely infection of the West Bank) but also the Gulf.
- A clear roadmap to a two-state solution would offer a political outcome most Palestinians would find attractive and most countries, other than Iran’s proxies, could support.
- This would need to start with renewal of the Palestinian Authority, through presidential and parliamentary elections as well as convening the Palestinian Legislative Council.
- It will also require replacement of Prime Minister Netanyahu and his extreme right-wing coalition in Israel with politicians prepared to deal with the Palestinian Authority once renewed.
Not everyone will agree with these propositions. But they are a start in building a consensus among today’s dissonant voices.
2 thoughts on “The cacophony is deafening but unnecessary”
Comments are closed.
Dear Mr. Daniel Server,
Thank you very much for your precise, concise and fair analysis of situations in Balkans in general and Kosova in particular, and also in Palestine/Israel conflict. If there is one thing I disagree with you in all your articles of the latest months that I am following, is the (mis)use of word Islamist.
The word “Islamist” is used with the subtext “radicals”, but this word is missing, and therefore it is very misleading. If we look at English-English dictionaries:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/islamist
“a supporter or advocate of Islamic fundamentalism”
So: “supporter or advocate of Islamic fundamentalism”. How did “fundamentalism” get here?
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/islamist
“someone who follows Islam very strictly”
So: “someone who follows Islam very strictly”. How did “too strict” come here?
If we verify the meaning of the suffix -ist:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/-ist
“a suffix of nouns, often corresponding to verbs ending in -ize or nouns ending in -ism, that denotes a person who practices or is concerned with something, or holds certain principles, doctrines, etc.”
That is, “Islamist” should have the meaning of a person who practices Islam or is related to Islam, or holds Islamic principles, Islamic doctrines, etc.
I think it is essential that in public discourse words are used precisely, so as not to create a wrong or incorrect impression. And this is where the name “Islamic State”, which the civilized world has embraced without analyzing it, has done great damage. The “Islamic State” as an organization has a terrorist connotation and the world should be more careful to always call it “The So-Called Islamic State” or “The Self-Proclaimed Islamic State” because it is not in line with the Qur’an and therefore it not Islamic at all. Otherwise we are dealing with Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) wittingly, or unwittingly, where words create the impression and therefore the distorted belief, which is producing world level confusions.
With utmost respect,
Ridvan
P.S. For the full analysis on this subject, please check my article:
https://botimetrb.wordpress.com/2023/12/14/the-so-called-islamism/
You label Netanyahu as extreme right wing. I shudder to think what Hamas would have done to Israel if his response had not been firm. He is the right man at the right time.