INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE – Separate Opinion of Judge ad hoc Aharon Barak of Israel

29 Monday Jan 2024

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

Introductory Notes:

South Africa’s effort to impugn the dignity of the State of Israel and the truth about its intent in the prosecution of the war against Hamas for the crime of Genocide is not only wrong on the merits, but an insult to the memory of any people who legitimately were targeted by nations for that very crime, including the Jewish people during the Shoah. I have written in a former blog that no doubt mistakes have been made by Tzahal in this terrible war that resulted tragically in the killing of many Palestinian civilians in Gaza following the atrocities committed by Hamas against Israeli civilians in southern Israel on October 7.

Former Israeli Supreme Court Justice Aharon Barak is a revered jurist in Israel representing the best in Israeli jurisprudence. He is also a survivor of the Holocaust. Justice Barak was one of the justices at the International Criminal Court in the Hague that adjudicated the charge by South Africa that Israel was committing Genocide against the Palestinian people.

The following is Justice Barak’s speech at the ICJ in its entirety. However, for the ease of reading, I eliminated all the citations. For those wishing to check those sources, see the link at the end of this blog. I have also bolded certain statements for the sake of clarity and emphasis.

From time to time, I post speeches and policy statements of others and use this blog as an educational vehicle to inform on issues of vital importance in America and Israel. This is one of those times. This 5000-word statement by Justice Barak is worth reading in its entirety. Justice Barak’s speech follows:

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC BARAK

South Africa came to the Court seeking the immediate suspension of the military operations in the Gaza Strip. It has wrongly sought to impute the crime of Cain to Abel. The Court rejected South Africa’s main contention and, instead, adopted measures that recall Israel’s existing obligations under the Genocide Convention. The Court has reaffirmed Israel’s right to defend its citizens and emphasized the importance of providing humanitarian aid to the population of Gaza. The provisional measures indicated by the Court are thus of a significantly narrower scope than those requested by South Africa.

Notably, the Court has emphasized that “all parties to the conflict in the Gaza Strip are bound by international humanitarian law”, which certainly includes Hamas. The Court has also stated that it “is gravely concerned about the fate of the hostages abducted during the attack on Israel on 7 October 2023 and held since then by Hamas and other armed groups, and calls for their immediate and unconditional release.”

GENOCIDE: AN AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL REMARK

The Genocide Convention holds a very special place in the heart and history of the Jewish people, both within and beyond the State of Israel. The term “genocide” was coined in 1942 by a Jewish lawyer from Poland, Raphael Lemkin, and the impetus for the adoption of the Genocide Convention came from the carefully planned and deliberate murder of six million Jews during the Holocaust.

I was five years old when, as part of Operation Barbarossa, the German army occupied the city in which I was born, Kaunas, in Lithuania. Within a few days, almost 30,000 Jews in Kaunas were taken from their homes and put into a ghetto. It was as if we were sentenced to death, awaiting our execution. On 26 October 1941, every Jew in the ghetto was instructed to gather in the central square, known as “Democracy Square.” Around 9,000 Jews were taken from the square on that day and executed by machine gun fire.

There was constant hunger in the overcrowded ghetto. But despite all the difficulties, there was an organized community life. It was a community of individuals condemned to death, yet in their hearts there was a spark of hope for life and a desire to preserve basic human dignity.

At the beginning of 1944, the Nazis rounded up all children under the age of 12, loaded them onto trucks and shot them during the infamous “Kinder Aktion.” It was clear that I had to leave in order to survive. I was smuggled out of the ghetto in a sack and taken to a Lithuanian farmer. A couple of weeks later my mother and I were transferred to another farmer. We had to be very discreet, so the farmer built a double wall in one of the rooms. We hid in that narrow space until we were finally liberated by the Red Army on 1 August 1944. Only five per cent of the Jews of Lithuania had survived.

Genocide is more than just a word for me; it represents calculated destruction and human behaviour at its very worst. It is the gravest possible accusation and is deeply intertwined with my personal life experience.

I have thought a lot about how this experience has affected me as a judge. In my opinion, the effect has been twofold. First, I am deeply aware of the importance of the existence of the State of Israel. If Israel had existed in 1939, the fate of the Jewish people might have been different. Second, I am a strong believer in human dignity. The Nazis and their collaborators sought to reduce us to dust and ashes. They aimed to strip us of our human dignity. However, in this, they failed. During the most challenging moments in the ghetto, we preserved our humanity and the spirit of humankind. The Nazis succeeded in murdering many of our people, but they could not take away our humanity.

The rebirth following the Holocaust is the rebirth of the human being, of the centrality of humanity and of human rights for every person. Many international instruments focusing on the rights of the individual were adopted after 1945, and the protection of human rights is also deeply rooted in the Israeli legal system.


ISRAEL’S COMMITMENT TO THE RULE OF LAW AND INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW

Israel is a democracy with a strong legal system and an independent judicial system. Whenever there is tension between national security interests and human rights, the former must be attained without compromising the protection of the latter. As I have written: “Security and human rights go hand in hand. There is no democracy without security; there is no democracy without human rights. Democracy is based upon a delicate balance between collective security and individual liberty”.

The need for such balancing has served as a silver lining in the rulings of the Supreme Court of Israel. Once, in the midst of a military operation in Gaza, the Supreme Court ordered the army to repair the water pipes that had been damaged by army tanks, and to do so while the operation was still ongoing. On the same occasion, it ordered the army to provide humanitarian aid to civilians and to halt hostilities to allow for the burial of the dead.

In its judgment on “targeted killings,” the Supreme Court ruled that Israel must always act in accordance with international humanitarian law, and that Israel must refrain from targeting terrorists when excessive harm to civilians is anticipated.

As a judge in the Israeli Supreme Court, I wrote that every Israeli soldier carries with him (or her), in their backpack, the rules of international law.

This means that international law guides the actions of all Israeli soldiers wherever they are. I also wrote that when a democratic State fights terrorism, it does so with one hand tied behind its back.

Even when fighting a terrorist group like Hamas that does not abide by international law, Israel must abide by the law and uphold democratic values.

The Israeli Supreme Court has also held that torture may not be used during the interrogation of terrorists, that religious sites and clergy must be protected, and that all captives must be afforded fundamental guarantees.

Naturally, as in any democratic society, some of these rulings have been criticized in Israel. Still, the public stands behind them and the military upholds them on a regular basis. Rulings of the Israeli Supreme Court, many of them based on international law, are the standards by which Israel conducts itself.

International law is also an integral part of the military code and the conduct of the Israeli army. The Code of Ethics of the Israeli Defense Forces states that “[a]n IDF soldier will only exercise their power or use their weapon in order to fulfill their mission and only when necessary. They will maintain their humanity during combat and routine times. The soldier will not use their weapon or power to harm uninvolved civilians and prisoners and will do everything in their power to prevent harm to their lives, bodies, dignity and property.”

When those norms are violated, the Attorney General, the State Attorney and the Military Advocate General take the necessary measures to bring those responsible to justice, and their decisions are subject to judicial review. In appropriate cases, the Israeli Supreme Court may instruct them how to act. This is Israel’s DNA. Governments have been replaced, new justices have come to the Supreme Court, but the DNA of Israel’s democracy does not change.

Israel’s multiple layers of institutional safeguards also include legal advice provided in real time, during hostilities. Strikes that do not meet the definition of a military objective or that do not comply with the rule of proportionality cannot go forward. The holdings of the Israeli Supreme Court and Israel’s institutional framework demonstrate a commitment to the rule of law and human life,  a commitment that runs through its collective memory, institutions, and traditions.

THE COURT’S PRIMA FACIE JURISDICTION

The Court has affirmed its prima facie jurisdiction for the purpose of indicating provisional measures. However, it is doubtful whether South Africa brought this dispute in good faith. After South Africa sent a Note Verbale to Israel on 21 December 2023, concerning the situation in Gaza, Israel replied with an offer to engage in consultations at the earliest possible opportunity. South Africa, instead of accepting this offer, which could have led to fruitful diplomatic talks, decided to institute proceedings against Israel before this Court. It is regrettable that Israel’s attempt to open a dialogue was met with the filing of an application.

If anything, history has taught us that the best attempts at peace in the Middle East have generally been a result of political negotiations and not judicial recourse. The 1978 peace talks between Egypt and Israel at Camp David are a good example of this. These talks succeeded when a third party – the United States – entered the process and assisted the parties in reaching an agreement. In my opinion, a similar scenario could have unfolded here. While the jurisdictional clause of the Genocide Convention does not require formal negotiations, the principle of good faith dictates that at least some efforts should be made to resolve disputes amicably before resorting to the Court. South Africa made no such effort and denied Israel a reasonable opportunity to engage meaningfully in a discussion on how to address the difficult humanitarian situation in Gaza.

The present case involves an additional difficulty. The other belligerent in the armed conflict in Gaza, Hamas, is not a party to the present proceedings. Thus, it is not possible to indicate measures directed at Hamas in the Order’s operative clause. While this does not prevent the Court from exercising its jurisdiction, it is an essential matter to be considered when determining the appropriate measures or remedies in this case.

THE ARMED CONFLICT IN GAZA

The Court briefly recalls the immediate context in which the present case came before it, namely the attack of 7 October 2023 by Hamas and the military operation launched by Israel in response to that attack. The Court, however, fails to give a complete account of the situation which has unfolded in Gaza since that fateful day.

On 7 October 2023, on the day of the Sabbath and the Jewish holiday of “Simchat Torah,” over 3,000 Hamas terrorists, aided by members of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, invaded Israeli territory by land, air and sea. The assault began in the early morning hours, with a barrage of rockets over the entire country and the infiltration of Hamas into Israeli territory. Alerts sounded all over Israel, civilians and soldiers took shelter, and many were later massacred inside those shelters. In other places, houses were burned down with civilians still in their safe rooms, burning alive or suffocating to death. At the Reim Nova Music Festival, young Israelis were murdered in their sleep or while running for their lives across open fields. Women’s bodies were mutilated, raped, cut up and shot in the worst possible places. Overall, more than 1,200 innocent civilians, including infants and the elderly, were murdered on that day. Two hundred and forty Israelis were kidnapped and taken to the Gaza Strip, and over 12,000 rockets have been fired at Israel since 7 October. These facts have been largely reported and are indisputable.

Israel, faced with an ongoing assault on its people and territory, launched a military operation. The Israeli authorities declared that the purpose of the operation is to dismantle Hamas and destroy its military and governmental capabilities, return the hostages, and secure the protection of Israel’s borders.

Hamas has vowed to “repeat October 7 again and again.”

Hamas is thus an existential threat to the State of Israel, and one that Israel must repel. This terrorist organization rules over the Gaza Strip, exercising military and governmental functions. Hamas seeks to immunize its military apparatus by placing it within and below civilian infrastructure, which is itself a war crime, and intentionally places its own population at risk by digging tunnels under their homes and hospitals. Hamas fires missiles indiscriminately at Israel, including from schools and other civilian installations in Gaza, in the full knowledge that many of them will fall inside Gaza causing death and injuries to innocent Palestinians. This is Hamas’s well-known modus operandi.

A few examples illustrate this well. When humanitarian aid enters Gaza, Hamas hoards it for its own purposes. Hamas has made clear that its tunnel network is designed for its fighters, rather than for civilians seeking shelter from the hostilities. Hamas has compromised the inherently civilian nature of schools and hospitals in Gaza, using them for military purposes by storing or launching rockets from and under these sites.

The fate of the hostages is especially disturbing. The act of hostage taking committed by Hamas on 7 October constitutes a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and is criminalized under the Rome Statute.

Hamas has not provided the names of the hostages, or any information regarding who is dead and who is still alive. Nor have they allowed the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to visit the hostages, as the law requires. The ICRC has not been able to provide medical supplies to the hostages, does not know their whereabouts, and has not succeeded in securing their release. As I write, this agony has now been ongoing for over 100 days.

This is not to undermine the suffering of innocent Palestinians. I have been personally and deeply affected by the death and destruction in Gaza. There is a danger of food and water shortages and the outbreak of diseases. The population lives in precarious conditions, facing the unfathomable consequences of war. In the role that has been entrusted to me as a judge ad hoc, but also as a human being, it is important for me to express my most sincere and heartfelt regret for the loss of innocent lives in this conflict.

The State of Israel was brought before this Court as its leadership, soldiers, and children processed the shock and trauma of the attack of 7 October. An entire nation trembled and, in the blink of an eye, lost its most basic sense of security. Fears of additional attacks were palpable as infiltrations continued in the days following the attack. The immediate context in which South Africa’s request was brought to the Court should have played a more central role in the Court’s reasoning. While it in no way relieves Israel of its obligations, this immediate context forms the inescapable backdrop for the legal analysis of Israel’s actions even at this stage of the proceedings.

THE APPROPRIATE LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYZING THE SITUATION IN GAZA

South Africa seized the Court on the basis of the Genocide Convention, Article IX of which provides the Court with jurisdiction to resolve disputes related to the “interpretation, application or fulfillment” of that treaty, “including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide”. This does not mean that the Genocide Convention provides the appropriate legal prism through which to analyze the situation.

In my view, the appropriate legal framework for analyzing the situation in Gaza is International Humanitarian Law (IHL) – and not the Genocide Convention. IHL provides that harm to innocent civilians and civilian infrastructure should not be excessive in comparison to the military advantage anticipated from a strike. The tragic loss of innocent lives is not considered unlawful so long as it falls within the rules and principles of IHL.

The drafters of the Genocide Convention clarified in their discussions that “[t]he infliction of losses, even heavy losses, on the civilian population in the course of operations of war, does not as a rule constitute genocide. In modern war belligerents normally destroy factories, means of communication, public buildings, etc. and the civilian population inevitably suffers more or less severe losses. It would of course be desirable to limit such losses. Various measures might be taken to achieve this end, but this question belongs to the field of the regulation of the conditions of war and not to that of genocide.”

Violations of IHL occurring in the context of the armed conflict, must be investigated and prosecuted by the competent Israeli authorities.

LACK OF INTENT

Central to the crime of genocide is the element of intent, namely the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such. International courts have been reluctant to establish such intent and characterize atrocities as genocide. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) was established primarily to prosecute the crime of genocide. Nonetheless, it set a high threshold for proving the specific intent required for genocide. In its very first case, the Akayesu case, the ICTR described the required specific intent as a “psychological relationship between the physical result and the mental state of the perpetrator” which “demands that the perpetrator clearly seeks to produce the act charged.”

This high bar explains some of the full or partial acquittals at the ICTR13. An analogous bar was also adopted by the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia.

The Court, with regard to State responsibility, has similarly adopted a restrictive approach in cases involving genocide on the merits. In Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), the Court concluded that – save in the case of Srebrenica – the widespread and serious atrocities committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina were not carried out with the specific intent to destroy, in part, the Bosnian Muslim group. Some years later, in Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia), the Court found that the required intent was lacking altogether and therefore dismissed Croatia’s claims in their entirety.

I accept that the proof of intent required at this preliminary stage is different from the one required at the merits stage. It is not necessary, at this stage, to convincingly show the mens rea of genocide by reference to particular circumstances, or for a pattern of conduct to be such that it could only point to the existence of such intent.

However, some proof of intent is necessary. At the very least, sufficient proof to make a claim of genocide plausible.

I strongly disagree with the Court’s approach regarding plausibility and, in particular, I disagree on the question of intent.

The Court may indicate provisional measures “only if it is satisfied that the rights asserted by the party requesting such measures are at least plausible.” In the present case, the Court concluded, with scant evidence, that “the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide” is plausible.

To understand the Court’s erroneous approach, it is important to compare the present case to the Gambia case: Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. To conclude that the asserted rights were plausible, in the Gambia case, the Court relied on two reports issued by an Independent International Fact-Finding Mission.

These reports were based on the meticulous collection of evidence over two years, which included 400 interviews with victims and eyewitnesses, analysis of satellite imagery, photographs and videos, the cross-checking of information against credible secondary information, expert interviews and raw data.

The independent experts traveled to Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand to interview victims and witnesses and hold other meetings. Furthermore, the Mission’s secretariat undertook six additional field missions.In its report of 12 September 2018, the IIFFM concluded that there were “reasonable grounds to conclude that serious crimes under international law ha[d] been committed,” including genocide

The IIFFM also stated that “on reasonable grounds . . . the factors allowing the inference of genocidal intent [were] present.”

The IIFFM reiterated its conclusions, based on further investigations, in its second report of 8 August 2019.

In the present case, there is no evidence comparable to that available to the Court in the Gambia case. To determine the plausibility of rights in the present case, the Court relies on four sets of facts. First, it looks at the figures for deaths, injuries and damage to infrastructure reported by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). Second, it relies on a statement made by the Under-Secretary-General of OCHA, a report of the World Health Organization, and a statement by the Commissioner-General of UNRWA. Third, it notes the statements of three Israeli officials. Fourth, it considers the views expressed by a group of Special Rapporteurs and the CERD Committee.

Regarding the figures for death, injuries and damage to infrastructure, the Court omits to mention that such figures come from the Ministry of Health of Gaza, which is controlled by Hamas. They are not the United Nations’ figures. Furthermore, these figures do not distinguish between civilians and combatants, or between military objectives and civilian objects. It is difficult to draw any conclusions from them.

The statements by the Under-Secretary-General of OCHA, the WHO and the Commissioner-General of UNRWA are insufficient to prove plausible intent. None of these statements mention the term genocide or point to any trace of intent. They indeed describe a tragic humanitarian situation, which is the unfortunate result of an armed conflict, but there is no reference to the subject-matter of the Genocide Convention. Furthermore, the Court is unaware of the underlying information or methodology used by the individuals who made these statements. This is in stark contrast to the evidence available to the Court in the Gambia case.

The declarations made by the President of Israel and the Minister of Defense of Israel are not a sufficient factual basis for inferring a plausible intent of genocide. Both authorities have issued several statements clarifying that Israel’s intent is the destruction of Hamas, not the Palestinians in Gaza. For example, on 29 October 2023, Israel’s Minister of Defense stated that “we are not fighting the Palestinian multitude and the Palestinian people in Gaza.” On 29 November 2023, the President of Israel said that “Israel is doing all it can, in cooperation with various partners, to increase the flow of humanitarian aid to the citizens of Gaza.” Regretfully, the Court did not take note of these statements. Finally, regarding the statements made by the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure, the latter is not an official with authority over the military. The relevant factual basis allowing for an inference of intent to commit genocide must stem from the organs which are capable of having an effect on the military operations. These organs have repeatedly explained that the purpose of the military operation is to target Hamas, not the Palestinians in Gaza.

It is concerning that certain Israeli officials have used inappropriate and degrading language, as noted by the group of Special Rapporteurs and the CERD Committee. Indeed, it is an issue that will have to be investigated by the competent Israeli authorities. However, to infer an intent to commit genocide from these statements, which were made in the wake of horrific attacks against the Israeli population, is plainly implausible.

The evidence presented by Israel shows that it is the opposite intent that is plausible and guides the military operation in Gaza. Israel pointed out that it has adopted several measures to minimize the impact of hostilities on civilians. For example, Israel continues to supply its own water to Gaza by two pipelines; it has increased access to medical supplies, facilitated the establishment of field hospitals and distributed fuel and winter equipment. Furthermore, the Prime Minister of Israel stated on 17 October 2023 “[a]ny civilian death is a tragedy . . . we’re doing everything we can to get the civilians out of harm’s way,” and on 28 October 2023 that “the IDF is doing everything possible to avoid harming those not involved”.

It is surprising that the Court took note of Israel’s statements explaining the steps it has taken to alleviate the conditions faced by the population in Gaza, together with the Attorney General’s statement announcing the investigation of any calls for the intentional harm to civilians, but then it completely failed to draw conclusions from these statements when examining the existence of intent. It is even more surprising that the Court did not view any of these measures and statements as sufficient to rule out the existence of a plausible intent to commit genocide.

The Court’s approach to plausibility in the present case is not akin to the one it took in the Gambia case, where the Court had compelling evidence of “clearance operations” committed against the Rohingya. These “clearance operations” included sexual violence, torture, the methodical planning of mass killing, denial of legal status, and instigation of hatred based on ethnic, racial, or religious grounds.

It is concerning that applying the Genocide Convention in these circumstances would undermine the integrity of the Convention and dilute the concept of genocide. The Genocide Convention seeks to prevent and punish the physical destruction of a group as such. It is not meant to ban armed conflict altogether. The Court’s approach opens the door for States to misuse the Genocide Convention in order to curtail the right of self-defense, in particular in the context of attacks committed by terrorist groups.


THE MEASURES INDICATED BY THE COURT

I now turn to the measures indicated by the Court. It is important to recall that the Court has not made any findings with regard to South Africa’s claims under the Genocide Convention. The conclusions reached by the Court in this preliminary stage do not prejudge in any way the claims brought by South Africa, which remain wholly unproven.

Regarding the conditions for the Court to indicate provisional measures, for the reasons stated above, I am not persuaded by South Africa’s arguments on the plausibility of rights, since there is no indication of an intent to commit genocide. This is why I voted against the first and second provisional measures indicated by the Court. Nevertheless, it is of the utmost importance to highlight that the first and second measures indicated by the Court merely restate obligations that Israel already has under Articles I and II of the Genocide Convention. The Court has made explicit what is already implicit in light of Israel’s existing obligations under the Convention.

Although I am convinced that there is no plausibility of genocide, I voted in favor of the third and fourth provisional measures.

With regard to the third measure, which concerns acts of public incitement, I have voted in favor in the hope that the measure will help to decrease tensions and discourage damaging rhetoric. I have noted the concerning statements by some authorities, which I am confident will be dealt with by the Israeli institutions.

With regard to the fourth measure, I voted in favor, guided by my deep humanitarian convictions and the hope that this will alleviate the consequences of the armed conflict for the most vulnerable. Through this measure, the Court reminds Israel of essential international obligations, which are already present in the DNA of the Israeli military.

This measure will ensure that Israel continues to enable the delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza, which I see as an obligation arising under IHL.

However, it is regretful that the Court was unable to order South Africa to take measures to protect the rights of the hostages and to facilitate their release by Hamas. These measures are based on IHL, as are those enabling the provision of humanitarian aid. Moreover, the fate of the hostages is an integral part of the military operation in Gaza. By taking measures to facilitate the release of the hostages, South Africa could play a positive role in bringing the conflict to an end.

I voted against the fifth provisional measure, which concerns the preservation of evidence. I did not vote against this measure because evidence is not important, but because South Africa has not shown that Israel has destroyed or concealed evidence. This claim is baseless and therefore should not have been entertained by the Court.

Genocide is a shadow over the history of the Jewish people, and it is intertwined with my own personal experience. The idea that Israel is now accused of committing genocide is very hard for me personally, as a genocide survivor deeply aware of Israel’s commitment to the rule of law as a Jewish and democratic State. Throughout my life, I have worked tirelessly to ensure that the object and purpose of the Genocide Convention is realized in practice; and I have fought to make sure that genocide disappears from our lives.

Had the Court granted South Africa’s request to put an immediate end to the military operation in Gaza, Israel would have been left defenseless in the face of a brutal assault, unable to fulfill its most basic duties vis-à-vis its citizens. It would have amounted to tying both of Israel’s hands, denying it the ability to fight even in accordance with international law. Meanwhile, the hands of Hamas would have been free to continue harming Israelis and Palestinians alike.

It is with great respect that I have joined this Court as an ad hoc judge. I was appointed by Israel; I am not an agent of Israel. My compass is the search for morality, truth and justice. It is to protect these values that Israel’s daughters and sons have selflessly paid with their lives and dreams, in a war that Israel did not choose.

(Signed) Aharon BARAK.
___________

For complete text and all footnoted references, see – https://www.icj-cij.org/node/203452

J STREET WELCOMES RENEWED BIDEN ADMINISTRATION EFFORTS TO BROKER HOSTAGE RELEASES, HALT TO GAZA WAR

26 Friday Jan 2024

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Introductory Notes:

Many Israeli military strategists now believe that eliminating Hamas entirely from Gaza as a governing and military authority (a principle Israeli goal in this war) is impossible given the 400 miles of subterranean tunnels everywhere under Gaza in which Hamas’ leadership and fighters hide. They also believe that if the Israeli-Hamas war continues it will be unlikely for Israel to gain the release of the remaining Israeli hostages, estimated at 136 souls (between 10 and 30 are believed to have been murdered by Hamas – many kidnapped Israelis have been sexually abused by their Hamas captors). The rising death and injury toll of Israeli soldiers and the death and injury of thousands of Palestinian civilians constitute a veritable humanitarian catastrophe.

This war must come to an end. All Israeli hostages must be returned to their families as soon as possible. Massive humanitarian aid must reach Palestinian civilians in southern Gaza, 85 percent of whom are homeless, food insecure and vulnerable to communicable diseases.

The following is a press statement issued this week by J Street, a pro-Israel, pro-peace and pro-democracy organization in Washington, D.C.

A disclaimer: I serve as one of four national co-chairs of the J Street Rabbinic and Cantorial Cabinet. I support this statement.

January 25, 2024 – J Street press brief, Washington, D.C.

J Street welcomes and fully supports President Biden’s reported decision to deploy CIA Director William J. Burns to assist in brokering a deal to temporarily halt the hostilities in Gaza, release all remaining hostages, and allow for an urgent, overdue influx of humanitarian aid to civilians.

“Charging the CIA Director with this role indicates that this is a serious, urgent and delicate effort to broker the release of remaining hostages and put a stop to the horrific devastation in Gaza,” said J Street President Jeremy Ben-Ami. “As Israel’s key partner with tremendous influence in the region, these goals must be a priority for the United States. It’s past time to recognize that this war, as it is being pursued by the Netanyahu government, is not achieving its stated aims. It’s time to lead with diplomacy.”

Earlier this week, J Street strongly supported a call from General Gadi Eisenkot – an Israeli War Cabinet member and retired Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces – for urgent diplomatic efforts to broker a negotiated stop to the fighting and to bring freedom to the hostages and relief to the people of Gaza. We continue to stand in solidarity with the families of hostages in Israel who are leading powerful protests to call for diplomatic efforts to ensure the safety and swift release of hostages – the only channel that has delivered significant no results so far.

J Street continues to call on the Biden administration to use all available leverage to press the Israeli government to facilitate an immediate, dramatic surge in humanitarian assistance to the civilian population of Gaza. The toll inflicted upon civilians by this war has been unbearably high, and the suffering must stop now.

Speaking to the Next Generation of Liberal and Progressive American Jews about Israel

19 Friday Jan 2024

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

Introductory Note: On Thursday evening, January 18, I spoke to a group of long-term older congregants of Temple Isaiah in Los Angeles about how to speak with the younger generations of liberal and progressive Jews in their families who feel unmoored by the rise in antisemitism in America and the Hamas atrocities on October 7, and who feel alienated from Israel on account of its prosecution of the war against Hamas that has resulted in the death of so many thousands of Palestinian civilians in Gaza. The following were my remarks.

Most of us here tonight appear to be over the age of 60, and so it’s important to begin by acknowledging that we likely think of ourselves in relationship to antisemitism and Israel differently than do our Millennial and Generation Z children and grandchildren.

As a boomer (I was born in 1949), I was raised with an idealized and romanticized vision of Israel as a small struggling new state being born like a phoenix out of the ashes of the Shoah. And I marvel at the major accomplishments of the Jewish state in absorbing hundreds of thousands of refugees, in its growth in agriculture, the sciences and technology, in the development of the Hebraic spirit, and in its military successes in wars thrust upon it from its earliest years. I so respect, as well, the moral principles first articulated by the biblical prophets and enshrined in the state’s aspirational Declaration of Independence.

My millennial sons’ impressions of Israel have been influenced not only by growing up in our liberal Zionist home, but by the traumas of the past 30 years including the Rabin assassination, the failed Oslo peace process, the 2nd Intifada, the occupation and expanding settlement enterprise, 5 Israel-Hamas wars, and the corrupt leadership of PM Netanyahu and his extremist right-wing government. Though my sons identify proudly as liberal American Jews and liberal Zionists, they are far more cynical about today’s Israeli leadership and its prosecution of this war than I am despite their appreciation of the positives in Israel’s life, culture and history. They express increasingly their sense of hopelessness about Israel’s political and moral direction as it is being led by PM Netanyahu and his government, and they are deeply disturbed by the massive loss of life in Gaza despite their outrage at the atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7.

The dramatic rise in antisemitism in the past few years in America and since October 7 especially has shaken them as well, as has the unprecedented hate and misinformation they and the younger generations of liberal American Jews are encountering on college and university campuses, in the work place and online. Many of their friends and peers, Jews and non-Jews, actively question Israel’s moral character in the prosecution of this war and on account of the policies of the current illiberal Israeli government. Many people they know openly characterize Israel as an oppressor nation, a colonial concoction of western imperialism, and an apartheid and racist state. Some have gone so far as to question Israel’s moral right to exist anywhere between the river and the sea.

I have always favored a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, since October 7 there have emerged many in America’s progressive young left-wing who say openly and shamelessly that they would like to see a return to 1948 and no Jewish state of Israel, an attitude I regard as blatant antisemitism because they deny the Jewish people the right to a nation state of our own in our historic Homeland.

Though this attitude is that of a very small minority in America (according to polls), many of our own liberal and progressive Jewish young people are increasingly critical of and alienated from Israel and are questioning the meaning of Israel and liberal Zionism in their lives. In response, it is important for us to remind them why Zionism emerged in the late 19th century and grew so dramatically in the 20th century.

Zionism was an answer to the “problem of the Jews” (i.e. antisemitism) and the “problem of Judaism” in that it represented the return of the Jewish people to history, the restoration of our people’s pride, dignity and independence in our historic Homeland, a rejuvenation of the Hebraic spirit and culture in the land of the prophets, and a test of our people’s religious and ethical values in the context of attaining sovereignty and power for the first time in two millennia. Ultimately, Zionism was meant to fulfill the prophetic vision for the Jewish people to become a light to the nations; in so many ways the State of Israel has already done so.

Arguing on behalf of Israel, however, in the current environment of war is difficult, to say the least. Add to that difficulty what preceded the war – the coming to power of the most extremist, racist, super-nationalist, Jewish supremacist, and ultra-Orthodox government in Israeli history and the nearly year-long protest movement that brought hundreds of thousands of Israelis into the streets every Saturday night to protest the government’s radical judicial reform legislation that would have diminished Israel’s democracy. Then came Hamas’ October 7 attack and hostage-taking, Israel’s overwhelming military response to destroy Hamas’ military capacity and ability to rule over Gaza, Israel’s efforts to free the hostages, the consequential destruction of Gaza and the killing and injury of so many thousands of Palestinian civilians. All of it is a toxic cocktail that has caused so many of our children and grandchildren to feel unmoored, demoralized, disaffected from Israel, questioning what Israel has become and what their relationship is to the Jewish state.

To pour salt into our people’s open wound, Israel has been charged with the crime of Genocide by the ICJ in The Hague, which strikes Israelis and so many Jews around the world as an utter outrage given Hamas’ actual genocidal intent against Israel and the Jewish people. The charge against the State of Israel is equivalent to blaming the victim of the very crimes of the Hamas aggressor.

October 7 and the Hamas-Israel war are among the most difficult moral, ethical and emotional challenges for Jews who care deeply about Israel and the health, safety and well-being of our Israeli brothers and sisters, and who are also concerned about the suffering of Palestinian civilians who have been placed cynically in harm’s way by Hamas’ situating itself inside and near private homes, apartment buildings, community centers, mosques, schools, and hospitals and under a massive sophisticated maze of tunnels totaling between 350 and 450 miles (NYT – January 18).

The largest question for us in the older generations of American liberal Jews is how we should respond to the next generations about this war and Israel in this unprecedented era of Jewish history?

First, I think that all of us have to be able to live with the tension between our American liberal Jewish values that emphasize justice, peace, diplomacy, pluralism, and compromise, along with the necessity of Israel fighting Hamas militarily as a radical extremist Islamic movement that does not value justice as we westerners understand justice, does not believe in compromise or peace with Israel on any land between the river and the sea, and is intent on murdering Jews and destroying the State of Israel.

Second, I want to be able to trust that the IDF is behaving according to international laws of war, the “principle of distinction” (i.e. choosing only military targets), the “principle of proportionality” (i.e. using only the amount of force necessary to neutralize the threat while assessing expected civilian harm), the “principle of precaution” (i.e. taking into account all matters necessary to mitigate civilian suffering), and the “principle of humanitarian obligation” (i.e. being certain that food, water, medicine, and fuel reach the Palestinian civilian population).

That said – we have to acknowledge that Israel likely has made mistakes when it dropped thousands of 2000-pound “dumb” bombs on populated areas seeking to destroy the underground Hamas tunnel system. We cannot turn a blind eye to the death and injury these bombs have caused. According to top American military experts who have experience fighting in dense urban settings such as Gaza, the Biden administration has recommended strongly to Israel that the massive bombings have to give way now to targeting specific Hamas command sites using smaller precision missiles and special op forces.

We American Jews have to accept as well the truth that we do not really know what the IDF and the Israeli intelligence services know. Israeli intelligence insists that it is prosecuting the war by the book – but many of us suspect that at times Israel has crossed a red line in a brutal and inhumane way and not adequately taken into account the damage it is doing to Palestinian civilian life while targeting Hamas.

Dr. Tal Becker, an intelligence expert, ethicist and advisor to the IDF, argued a few weeks ago that Israel cannot in real time share its intelligence during the prosecution of the war, and that it is a mistake for us to rush to judgment about what Israel has done. There will come a day of reckoning, he said, not just concerning the failure of the government, intelligence services and the IDF to protect Israelis in the south on October 7, but also how the IDF conducted and prosecuted this war in light of the international rules of war.

We American liberal Jews have to hope that as the strongest military power in the Middle East, IDF commanders are checking constantly to assure that Israel’s use of power is as an instrument in achieving absolutely necessary and defined ends and not as an ideology in and of itself. We have to hope that Israel is fighting this just war justly in an impossible urban environment.

The humanitarian disaster caused by this war has placed the burden of responsibility on Israel, though Israel says that “it has facilitated the delivery of over 130,000 tons of humanitarian aid, that Israel has excess capacity to inspect and process trucks, and that there’s no backlog and no limitation on Israeli’s end. But UN aid agencies counter Israel’s claims that Israel is hampering the delivery of lifesaving assistance to Gazans.” (Washington Post, January 18). Who is right – Israel or UN aid agencies?

Third, we have to keep in mind that there is no pathway to peace between Israel and the Palestinians except in a two states for two peoples resolution of their conflict (though presently a two-state solution is not being discussed in Israel), and that Hamas must be defeated and have no role at all in what comes after the war. Half-measures won’t be adequate. Many believe that calling for a ceasefire prematurely, even if doing so will result in the release of all the hostages and the killing and injury of Israeli soldiers and Palestinian civilians will stop, will leave Hamas in Gaza to repeat October 7 over and over again, as Hamas leadership has promised publicly to do.

Most Israeli experts now believe, however, that Hamas cannot be fully defeated nor uprooted from its 350 to 450 miles of tunnels under Gaza and that continuing the war will sacrifice the lives of the remaining hostages and risk even more Israeli soldiers’ lives and the lives of thousands more innocent Palestinian civilians. If a hostage-prisoner exchange with an extended ceasefire can save the lives of the 136 hostages still being held as well as saving the lives of Israeli soldiers and innocent Palestinian civilians in Gaza, then a ceasefire would be worth doing. This prisoner-hostage exchange would likely include 8,000 Palestinians now imprisoned in Israeli jails, 559 of whom are serving life sentences for murdering Israelis. It would also include the 130 Hamas terrorists captured inside Israel on October 7 and hundreds more captured in Gaza during the war and brought to Israel. There are also countless Palestinians who have been arrested in the West Bank every week who are guilty of lessor crimes, and hundreds of young Palestinians who have been jailed for minor offenses such as throwing rocks. Releasing the worst of these prisoners presents a huge risk to Israel that they will return to Hamas and again attack Israelis.

It is now my position that Israel ought to negotiate for the remaining Israeli hostages and bring them home as soon as possible because with every passing day there is more risk to their lives, to the lives of Israeli soldiers and innocent Palestinians in a war that cannot, as understood by many Israeli military leaders, eliminate Hamas entirely.

October 7 has challenged the Zionist ethos that Israelis could rely upon the IDF and their government to protect them against terrorism and attack. But October 7 also has shown the importance of the Zionist cause, that the Jewish people has the right and the need for a national home.

One more question to consider with our American young liberal and progressive Jews – Can the Jewish people survive over the long-term without a Jewish state? It is my conviction that except for intensive orthodox communities and perhaps small pockets of secular-liberal Jews, within a few generations – should Israel cease to exist – the majority of the world’s Jews will assimilate and disappear. Consequently, October 7 has to be understood as an existential attack on the Jewish people, Judaism, the Jewish historical experience and memory, Jewish values and religion, and everything we believe and stand for as Jews.

Since 1948, we Jews thought that the enemies of the Jewish people could no longer undermine our confidence as a people. We thought that a Jewish state would be the solution to Jew-hatred, that pogroms and antisemitism were part of a distant past in Jewish history.

October 7 reminds us that barbarians still are at the gate, and they will break into our dwellings, rip babies form their parents’ arms, and commit the most brutal crimes against humanity that we have not fathomed or talked about publicly since the Holocaust. The mass hoopla by too many Gazans who shamed our hostages and abused Jewish corpses was a barbarous assault on our dignity as a people and on common decency.

Based upon forensic evidence discovered in southern Israel after that infamous day in October, we now know that Hamas intended to stay in Israel a month or longer and slaughter far more Israelis that it did. In many respects, despite Israel’s military successes so far in Gaza, Hamas already has won aspects of this war. There are still 136 hostages being held (though informed Israeli sources suggest that between 10 and 20 hostages have been murdered); 180,000 Israelis have been displaced as refugees in their own country; Israel is isolated in the international community except for the US, the UK, Germany and perhaps a few other nations; and Israel has been brought before the ICJ of the Hague to stand trial for the crime of Genocide.

Rabbi Ammi Hirsch of the Stephen S. Wise Free Synagogue in New York asked these important questions on his podcast In These Times:

“Why has Hamas become popular with so many young Americans? Hamas doesn’t permit free speech, freedom of the press, or freedom of religion, political pluralism or opposition parties, or anything that defines a liberal society. In Hamas’ world abortion is illegal and LGBTQ is illegal. Corruption is rampant with Hamas leaders living in luxury.

What explains the support that western liberals give to fundamentalist, misogynistic antisemites such as Hamas and Hezbollah? Why do those who see racism everywhere in daily life fail to recognize the systemic antisemitism of Hamas? Why do those who are so acutely sensitive to the assignment of moral accountability to both individuals and institutions fail to assign moral agency to the Palestinians? Why do progressives treat Palestinians as passive victims bearing no political or moral responsibility for their actions? What business do progressives have supporting those who oppress gays, women, minorities, and Christians? What business do free speech advocates have ignoring the suppression of free speech? Why do progressives give aid and comfort to the enemies of progress? By what measure of decency do they abandon liberal Muslims who challenge extremists in their own midst? Why do those who so believe in diversity condemn Israel, one of the most diverse countries in the world?

This is not liberalism; it’s a betrayal of liberalism. It isn’t progressivism; it’s a back-sliding of progress. How could a vast number of people in the west confuse an Isis-like philosophy for a liberation movement and ignore, explain, deny, and justify blood-thirsty brutalities?”

In conclusion, I want to offer a few things to consider, in addition to what I have said thus far, when talking with our liberal and progressive American Jewish young people who may feel morally and emotionally alienated from Israel.

First, that we Jews are one family and that we have to listen to each other’s concerns and perspectives. We older liberal Jews especially have to listen to our younger liberal and progressive Jewish family members and their friends without necessarily having to respond to every statement they make that may rankle us.

Second, that we American Jews live here and Israelis live there. Virtually every Israeli Jew and some Arab-Israelis too has lost someone or knows someone who has been a victim of Hamas. October 7 is a shared national catastrophe the likes of which has not occurred since the 1973 War or the 1948 War of Independence. We American liberal and progressive Jews have to be able to empathize with Israelis’ grief and fear as well as their joys.

Third, for sanity’s sake, we need to be selective about what legitimate sources of information, news and commentary we read and watch, and steer clear of most social media that tends to distort and shock. My recommendations are as follows:

The Times of Israel Daily Briefing Podcast and the online Times of Israel news site

The Haaretz Podcast and Haaretz’s English language daily online newspaper

The For Heaven’s Sake weekly podcast with Rabbi Donniel Hartman and Yossi Klein Halevi

The Promised Podcast weekly out of Tel Aviv

The Forward on-line magazine

The Israel Policy Forum with Michael Kaplow

The J Street Daily Roundup of News, Commentary and Opinion

The In These Times Podcast hosted by Rabbi Ammi Hirsch

My book Why Israel (and its future) Matters – Letters of a Liberal Rabbi to the Next Generation (reissued, November 2023) with an Introduction written after October 7 and an Afterword by my millennial sons Daniel and David Rosove.

Finally, I recommend highly that you listen to Dr. Tal Becker’s 32-minute opening statement before the International Court of Judgment at The Hague in defense of the State of Israel to the charge of Genocide. You can find it on You Tube – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQaDIcdgLRc

This blog also appears at the Times of Israel – https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-next-generation-of-liberal-and-progressive-american-jews-and-israel/

100 Days of Captivity – Bring them Home

12 Friday Jan 2024

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Sunday, January 14 marks the 100th day of captivity for the remaining hostages (estimated at 136) still being held in Hamas captivity against the laws of war. The freed hostages have testified to horrific conditions they suffered (here and here). The longer the remaining hostages are held, the ability to bring them back to Israel alive decreases. There is little to no knowledge where they are or how they are faring. Hamas had denied the Red Cross access to them.

Join the movement to bring them home. Write the number 100 on paper and place it over your heart as I am doing below. Photograph yourself and post it everywhere along with the tag #BringThemHomeNow

Palestinian Poll in the midst of Hamas-Israel War

05 Friday Jan 2024

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

A poll was conducted between November 22 to December 2 of Palestinian attitudes in Gaza, the West Bank and Israel as a consequence of the Hamas-Israel War. The survey was taken by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, or PSR, and led by the respected Dr. Khalil Shikaki. The survey interviewed 1,231 people in the West Bank and Gaza (with an error margin of 4 percentage points). In Gaza, poll workers conducted 481 in-person interviews during the pause in fighting.

Dr. Shikaki spoke this week with the Vice President of Policy for J Street, Dr. Debra Shushan, and reported that attitudes of Palestinians in Gaza are at times very different from West Bank Palestinians, and both are different from attitudes of Israeli-Palestinian citizens.

The following are highlights of that conversation:

  • Before October 7, Hamas never had a majority approval of Palestinians living in Gaza, and there was never majority support for a war with Israel. At the same time, 44% in the West Bank said they supported Hamas after the war began, up from just 12% in September. In Gaza, Hamas enjoyed 42% support, up slightly from 38% three months ago;
  • Support for armed struggle against Israel totaled 35% of Palestinians during the term of the former Israeli government led by Prime Ministers Bennett and Lapid and rose to 53% for armed struggle against Israel during the current extremist government of Bibi Netanyahu;
  • Despite the devastation of the war, 57% of Palestinian respondents in Gaza and 82% in the West Bank believe that Hamas was correct in launching the October attack. After October 7, Palestinians living in the West Bank increased their support of Hamas for two reasons: 1. the survey took place during the pause in which negotiations lead to the release of about 300 West Bank Palestinian prisoners to their West Bank Palestinian families; and 2. there is an overwhelming lack of support for the Palestinian Authority and PA President Mahmud Abbas in the West Bank;
  • In response to the question whether Palestinians supported the Hamas massacre, rape and kidnapping of Israeli civilians on October 7 and whether Palestinians regarded the attack as war crimes, 80% of Palestinians recognize that killing women and children are war crimes. However, only 25% of Gazans actually saw videos of the massacre and of those 25%, they were ten times more likely to say that Hamas committed war crimes than those who did not see the videos. In the West Bank, 7% saw the videos and therefore the vast majority of West Bank Palestinians did not believe Hamas even committed war crimes;
  • It is common during war, Dr. Shikaki noted, that each side tends to view news that supports its own narrative of the war. Palestinians overwhelmingly watch Al Jazeera news, and some watch Al Aqsa News or Palestinian television. None of the three networks showed the videos. Though some younger Palestinians watch social media, again, they tend to avoid looking at media that undermines their narrative to give them an element of deniability. Dr. Shikaki believes that in time, however, more Palestinians will see the videos of the massacres and their attitudes towards Hamas likely will change accordingly. While Israeli media coverage has focused intensely on the attack on October 7, Palestinian news has fixated on the war in Gaza and the suffering of civilians there;
  • In response to the Palestinians’ preferred future for Hamas or the Palestinian Authority, attitudes are based upon which organization the people most trust to address Palestinian needs. Trust of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank is very low and trust of Hamas in Gaza is very low. Since the war began, there has been a slight rise in support for Hamas in Gaza and more so in the West Bank. 60% of West Bank Palestinians say that the Palestinian Authority should be dissolved. 88% believe that PA President Abbas should resign and the PA’s continued security coordination with Israel’s military against Hamas, Abbas’ bitter political rival, is widely unpopular;
  • Attitudes depended on which of the two options Palestinians believed was most likely to bring results – violence or diplomacy. Gazans preferred violence and West Bank Palestinians preferred diplomacy. West Bank Palestinians preferred also a national unity government of technocrats including Hamas and the Palestinian Authority with elections held within a year after the end of the war;
  • When asked who is most likely a unifying Palestinian leader, the vast majority of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank named Marwan Barghouti, the jailed Fatah and Tanzim leader who is serving in an Israeli prison 5 life sentences for the deaths of Israelis during the 2nd Intifada between 2000 and 2005;
  • 66% of Palestinians preferred the leadership of a secular nationalist leader (i.e. Barghouti) and 33% preferred an Islamist (i.e. Nasrallah). Barghouti is preferred because he is regarded as incorruptible, a democrat, of the Palestinian mainstream with a nationalist agenda that includes a two-state solution with the Palestinian capital in Jerusalem and the border between Israel and Palestine based on the 1949 armistice lines. Palestinians regard Barghouti as supporting both the diplomatic and violent approach. In a two-way presidential race, Ismail Haniyeh, the exiled political leader of Hamas, would trounce Abbas while in a three-way race, Barghouti would be ahead just slightly;
  • The poll showed that only 15% of Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza trust Israel, similar to the numbers of Israelis that trust the Palestinians. However, Israeli-Palestinian citizens trust both sides by large margins. Palestinians trust Russia and China far more than they trust the United States, Germany, France, and the UK, and they trust Qatar most of all (note: Al Jazeera is based in Qatar). Palestinian regard for Iran and Hezbollah has increased during the war.

Conclusions: This survey is a snapshot of current Palestinian attitudes in three arenas – Gaza, the West Bank and Israel. Attitudes taken in the midst of this war can change dramatically once the fighting ends and more is known among Palestinians about what Hamas terrorists did on October 7 in southern Israel. Attitudes will also dramatically be affected the day after the war ends and it is determined what plans are made to govern over Gaza and the West Bank. Attitudes will be affected also by whether the current Israeli government of Netanyahu and his extremist ministers Itamar Ben Gvir and Betzalel Smotrich will continue to rule or not.

J STREET TO BIDEN: ACT NOW TO SAVE LIVES, HOSTAGES, CHANCE FOR LONG-TERM PEACE

22 Friday Dec 2023

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

Introductory Notes:

As a national co-chair of the J Street Rabbinic and Cantorial Cabinet, I fully support J Street’s policy statement below concerning the Israel-Hamas war. It requires a close read to appreciate the complexity of the disastrous war started by Hamas’s brutal attack against Israeli civilians and its massive hostage taking on October 7 that has resulted in a humanitarian disaster in Gaza. J Street’s position is nuanced and represents a positive path forward and hopefully, will be accepted as a whole by the Biden Administration, Congress, the Israeli government, what remains of the Palestinian Authority and other Arab nations.

In brief, J Street expresses our full support for Israel and its right to defend itself against the terrorist organization Hamas, to remove Hamas from power over Gaza using only “intelligence-led precision strikes with precision munitions, and special operations forces” and not massive bombing, to promote a pause (not a ceasefire) to negotiate the release of all hostages and allow the infusion of massive amounts of humanitarian aid into Gaza, to urge the United States and the Biden Administration to propose a massive Marshall-like plan after the war for the restoration of Gaza, to work with a post-Netanyahu government and a restructured Palestinian Authority with the support of Arab nations to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in two-states for two peoples with security guarantees for both Israel and the Palestinians, and to institute strict oversight and scrutiny of American arms in compliance with international law.

I urge you to read the following carefully and share it with everyone you know, especially young American Jews and non-Jews.

December 21, 2023

“Two and a half months after the horrific October 7 attack by Hamas, J Street’s support for the people and state of Israel remains unwavering. We continue to affirm Israel’s right and obligation to defend its territory, provide security for its citizens and bring to justice those who perpetrated this barbaric attack.

However, as six Members of Congress with significant national security experience wrote this week to President Biden, the civilian death toll and humanitarian crisis in Gaza that the Netanyahu government’s military operation have caused are unacceptable and out of line with American interests and values.

These Members – each of whom learned bitter lessons about war and counterterrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan – urged the President to “use all our leverage to achieve an immediate and significant shift [in Israel’s] military strategy and tactics in Gaza.”

In recent days, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin warned Israel that when you drive the civilian population into the arms of the enemy, you can “replace a tactical victory with a strategic defeat.” And former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley weighed in similarly on the nature of the war, noting that “military doctrine has evolved … and the preferred doctrine today in highly dense urban areas is to do intelligence-led precision strikes with precision munitions, and special operations forces.”

J Street too opposes the Netanyahu government’s disastrous approach to the war.

We call on President Biden to heed the advice of this wide array of national security experts and veterans of counterterrorism operations and to convey to the Netanyahu government, both publicly and privately, that the time has come to end the all-out military campaign and massive aerial bombardment of Gaza and immediately shift to a far more targeted and limited operation.

In light of the Netanyahu government’s repeated refusal to heed the administration’s call and advice, J Street urges the Administration to take further, firmer steps to bring about this change including:

  1. Proposing a renewed pause in the fighting that enables the safe return of the remaining hostages and a dramatic surge in humanitarian assistance.

The terms of a renewed break in hostilities would include Hamas’ release of additional hostages in exchange for an extended break in the fighting and a further release of prisoners. We would also support the Administration proposing a longer-term end to the fighting were Hamas required in addition to releasing all the hostages to relinquish its remaining arsenal and accept passage for its leadership to a third country.

A renewed pause should bring a dramatic, urgent infusion of humanitarian aid, inclusive of food, water and medical supplies for families in Gaza. The civilian population of Gaza – the majority of whom are children and 85 percent or more of whom are displaced from their homes – are living in unbearable conditions. We commend the Administration’s efforts to reopen the Kerem Shalom crossing to facilitate movement of more aid into Gaza. This must be paired with the entry of humanitarian aid organizations to establish more field hospitals, shelters and distribution mechanisms.

  1. Shifting America’s posture at the United Nations.

The United States should stop vetoing Security Council resolutions related to the conflict that seek to find ways to advance the release of hostages, the provision of humanitarian assistance and a pathway to diplomatic resolution of the conflict. Rather, the US should draft and lead resolutions that accord with our policy and values, possibly outlining terms for further pauses in the fighting, holding Israel and other actors accountable when their actions violate international law or contradict US interests and renewing the global commitment to a two-state solution, while articulating parameters to guide negotiations.

  1. Outlining a plan for post-war Gaza reconstruction and a pathway to a viable Palestinian state.

The Administration should provide a detailed public plan for the day after the present crisis that begins with reconstruction and redevelopment of the devastation in Gaza and leads to the creation of a viable, independent state of Palestine alongside a secure Israel. The plan should provide for a revitalized and reformed Palestinian Authority that unites the West Bank and Gaza and creates the conditions in which Israel can normalize relations with all regional neighbors and the broader Arab and Muslim world.

The President should make clear that any American investment or involvement in post-war reconstruction – for instance in a multinational Marshall Plan-style effort – will be accompanied by an American commitment to recognition of Palestinian statehood – despite Prime Minister Netanyahu’s opposition. Already in recent days, the UAE has made clear that financial and other commitments from the Arab world to post-war development in Palestine will only come when there is an Israeli commitment to a two-state solution.

  1. Instituting strict oversight and scrutiny of arms and material purchased with US assistance to ensure they are used in compliance with domestic and international law.

Senator Chris Van Hollen’s proposed amendment to the President’s supplemental assistance request provides a commonsense and universal approach to oversight of weapons purchased with American assistance. The President should ask Congress to include such transparency measures in the supplemental package they are considering and should indicate that the Administration will use all the tools already at its disposal under existing law to ensure that the Israeli government – along with all other countries receiving US assistance – acts within the bounds of domestic and international law.

The death toll in this conflict is too great and the suffering unbearable – leading many passionate and committed individuals and organizations to call on Israel to unilaterally cease fire. J Street does not join in calling for a ceasefire because we do not see a viable path to a stable, peaceful future for either Israelis or Palestinians with Hamas in control of Gaza and still committed in its charter to Israel’s destruction and publicly pledging to repeat the October 7 attack if given the chance.

Having said this, we also see no viable path to sustainable, long-term resolution of this conflict if the Netanyahu government continues to add to the already unacceptable civilian toll and humanitarian crisis in Gaza and to disregard American recommendations on the conduct of the war.

We urge the Biden administration to take immediate action to ensure that the Israeli government significantly shifts course before this conflict costs more lives and wreaks more pain and devastation. 

The way the current campaign is being pursued only jeopardizes Israel’s efforts to defeat Hamas and secure the release of the hostages – while laying the groundwork for even deeper, long-term security challenges.

Poll: Most young Americans think Israel should be ‘ended and given to Hamas’

18 Monday Dec 2023

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 3 Comments

Introductory Notes:

I’m stunned by this poll showing that in the 18-24 age group of young Americans surveyed, far too many believe that the State of Israel should “cease to exist, and instead be replaced by a Palestinian entity.”

This is what the monthly Harvard CAPS/Harris poll (scroll down to page 46) discovered (I post below the Times of Israel article about the poll).

This poll did not break down the positions of young 18-24 year-old American Jews, and I hope that the percentages in America generally are not parallel with similar numbers amongst America’s young Jews. Whether they are or not, we have to assume that our 18-24 year-old American Jews and, for that matter, under 40 year-old American Jews too, are confronting either on college or high school campuses, in work and amongst their friends, sentiments such as this poll suggests are held given the dramatic rise in antisemitism in America since October 7 and over the past few years.

I believe that my re-issued 2019 book “Why Israel and its Future Matters – Letters of a Liberal Rabbi to the Next Generation – 2023 edition” with a Foreword that I wrote after October 7, is an important read for young Jews starting in early high school, but for older generations as well, because I offer nuanced broad-based thinking about why, despite this war with Hamas, we American liberal Jews need to support Israel for our own sake and for the sake of our Israeli brothers and sisters. I argue that we also need to support next steps in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a matter of necessity for Israel’s democratic and Jewish character and as a matter of justice for the Palestinians living under occupation.

My book is available from the publisher – Ben Yehuda Press – https://www.benyehudapress.com/   – or on Amazon.com. I ask you to consider purchasing it for your children and grandchildren from the age of 14 or 15 onwards, and for yourselves too – since its initial publication, people have told me that this is an important book for older American Jews too.

See my blog for more details about the book, and the list of endorsers – https://rabbijohnrosove.blog/2023/11/12/rabbi-rosoves-new-updated-2023-edition-why-israel-and-its-future-matters-letters-of-a-liberal-rabbi-to-the-next-generation-publ-november/

Here is the report of the poll in The Times of Israel:

Majority of all respondents support Israel, but results from 18-24 age group show majority think IDF campaign ‘genocidal,’ while saying calls for genocide of Jews are legitimate

By ToI Staff 17 December 2023

Over half of young Americans surveyed on Israel’s conflict with Hamas believe the Jewish state should cease to exist, and instead be replaced by a Palestinian entity, according to an online poll conducted this week.

The monthly Harvard CAPS/Harris poll found continuing support for Israel in its campaign against Hamas among every age demographic but 18- to 24-year-olds.

Overall, the survey found that 81 percent of respondents back Israel. Among the youngest age bracket, though, support is evenly split between Israel and Hamas.

On several questions, voters in that age group seemed to express contradicting or muddled views. For instance, despite 51% replying in the affirmative when asked if Israel should be “ended and given to Hamas and the Palestinians,” 58% of respondents in the group also thought Hamas should be removed from running Gaza.

However, most of the entire pool of respondents (60%) preferred a two-state solution to the conflict.

The survey found that 66% of respondents in the 18-24 age group think that Hamas’s October 7 massacre constituted genocide. At the same time, 60% think that the attacks were justified by Palestinian grievances, indicating that they believe that genocide of Israelis is justified.

Overall, 73% of respondents said the onslaught was genocide, and similarly 73% believed it to be unjustified.

Additionally, a majority of all respondents across the board view the October 7 massacre — when Hamas-led terrorists rampaged through southern communities, killing 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and kidnapping some 240 to Gaza — as a terrorist attack (84%), including 73% in the 18-24 bracket.

Sixty-three percent of all respondents answered that Israel was trying to defend itself with its military offensive aimed at eliminating Hamas, which has ruled the Strip since 2007. But 60% of 18- to 24-year-olds said that the campaign constitutes genocide against Gazans.

The Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza has claimed that, since the start of the war, more than 18,800 people have been killed, mostly civilians. These figures cannot be independently verified and are believed to include some 7,000 Hamas terrorists, according to Israel, as well as civilians killed by misfired Palestinian rockets. Another estimated 1,000 terrorists were killed in Israel during and in the wake of the October 7 onslaught.

Young people were also against the overall trend on the question of a ceasefire: While 64% of respondents said a ceasefire should be agreed to only after the release of hostages and Hamas being booted from power, 67% of 18- to 24-year-olds favored an unconditional deal that would leave things as they are.

The poll also asked respondents about antisemitism on university campuses, which has been on the rise since the beginning of the war.

Many 18- to 24-year-olds seemed to be okay with hate speech at universities: According to the poll, 53% of young people thought students should be free to call for Jewish genocide on campus without punishment, though 70% said such calls constituted hate speech.

Out of all respondents, 74% answered that those who make the calls should face disciplinary action, while 79% said the calls were hate speech.

The survey also asked respondents about the congressional hearing on college antisemitism earlier this month, when the presidents of Harvard, MIT, and the University of Pennsylvania failed to answer in the affirmative that calls for Jewish genocide violate the universities’ code of conduct, saying only that they do so in certain contexts.

Their responses provoked a backlash from Republican opponents, along with alumni and donors who said the university leaders are failing to stand up for Jewish students on their campuses. Penn’s president Liz Magill resigned due to the criticism, while the other two have remained in their positions.

While 67% of 18-to 24-year-olds think the presidents of Harvard, MIT, and Penn universities went far enough in condemning antisemitism, when faced with comments they made during congressional testimony — that calls for Jewish genocide are only punishable depending on the context — 73% said they should resign.

Furthermore, a majority of respondents (68%) acknowledged that antisemitism is prevalent on university campuses, with 63% of 18- to 24-year-olds responding in the affirmative.

The poll also asked respondents who they believed was responsible for antisemitism on campus, with 24% saying the hatred has always had a presence; 20% blamed students; 18% left-wing political movements; 11% university presidents and administrators; 11% foreign funding of universities and student groups; 7% university professors; and 8% answered none of the above.

Only 8% in the 18-24 bracket believed antisemitism had always existed on campus.

Most of those in that age bracket said they watched or read about the presidents’ testimonies in the poll, which was conducted online among 2,034 registered voters on December 13 and 14.

What Hamas Believes – with Edmund Husain

10 Sunday Dec 2023

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

“The heart of Hamas is evil.” So said Edmund Husain who discusses what Islamic theology and history tell us about both Hamas and the future of Israel.

Edmund Husain is a British writer and political advisor who served as a senior advisor to former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. His doctoral studies include Western philosophy and Islam. He has held senior fellowships at think tanks in London and New York, and is currently an adjunct professor at Georgetown University. Among his books are The Islamist, The House of Islam: A Global History, and Among the Mosques.

This hour-long podcast is exceptionally worthwhile, and I recommend it highly.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/foreign-podicy/id1313495723?i=1000637231707

When mourning is going close to death without dying

03 Sunday Dec 2023

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 7 Comments

I haven’t been posting for a while because I haven’t known what to say beyond what I’ve already said about this awful war that Hamas thrust upon Israel and the Jewish people.

I’ve been grieving along with everyone I know in Israel and the United States the loss of the 1200 Israelis murdered and desecrated on October 7, and the growing number of young Israeli soldiers fighting and dying in Gaza. I’m deeply worried about the lives and well-being of the Israeli hostages still imprisoned by Hamas. I’ve not stopped feeling the rage I experienced after the vicious and cruel attack, and my disgust has intensified like bile in my mouth as reports became known of how badly the freed hostages (children, women, and the elderly) were treated in their captivity in Gaza. And my shock and rage have been strengthened exponentially when I learned of the massive sexual violence perpetrated by savage Hamas terrorists against Israeli girls and women on October 7.

I’ve also been saddened by the deaths of all the innocent Palestinians in Gaza and I empathize with their families too, because that’s what we Jews do – mourn the loss of every innocent life.

I was recently reminded of a poem by Mary Oliver called “Heavy.” She expressed well how I’ve been feeling since all this began and how I presume so many Israelis and perhaps, many of you reading this also are feeling in these days:

That time / I thought I could not / go any closer to grief / without dying

I went closer, / and I did not die. / Surely God / had his hand in this,

as well as friends. / Still, I was bent, / and my laughter, / as the poet said,

was nowhere to be found. / Then said my friend Daniel / (brave even among lions), / “It is not the weight you carry

but how you carry it— / books, bricks, grief— / it’s all in the way / you embrace it, balance it, carry it

when you cannot, and would not, / put it down.” / So I went practicing. / Have you noticed?

Have you heard / the laughter / that comes, now and again, / out of my startled mouth?

How I linger / to admire, admire, admire / the things of this world / that are kind, and maybe

also troubled— / roses in the wind, / The sea geese on the steep waves, / a love / to which there is no reply?

Regaining perspective in these days is important for our emotional and mental well-being. So is breathing, seeing and appreciating the quieter things that are meaningful and filled with beauty and loveliness – the natural things, family and friends and creativity of all kinds.

May our people in Israel be fortified in this fight, and may the IDF be victorious over the evil it is confronting. Then may peace come to Jerusalem and to all the peoples of the Land.

This blog also appears at The Times of Israel Blogs – https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/when-mourning-is-going-close-to-death-without-dying/

Fighting a Just War – with Tal Becker and Yehuda Kurtzer

22 Wednesday Nov 2023

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Yehuda Kurtzer, Director of the North American Hartman Institute and host of the Podcast “Identity/Crisis,” interviews Tal Becker, an Israeli lawyer, Senior Fellow at the Hartman Institute in Jerusalem, Legal Advisor of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and a veteran member of Israeli peace negotiation teams. They discuss the ethics of Israel’s war against Hamas.

Yehuda and Tal explore just war theory through legal, philosophical and Jewish frameworks and analyze the actions of the IDF and Hamas accordingly.

This is among the most important podcasts I have listened to since October 7. Their conversation is cogent and clear and goes far beyond the headlines and looks at the reality of this unprecedented war and the moral values of Judaism and Israel.

If you are confused by any aspect of this just war, are not certain that Israel is behaving according to the Laws of War even though everything Hamas did on October 7 is contrary to all ethics in war and are obvious war crimes, or want to understand more clearly the nature of the enemy that is Hamas and the principles of war that Israel has indeed followed to the best of its ability, listen to this hour-long podcast. You will be glad you did.

Listen here – https://www.hartman.org.il/fighting-a-just-war/