Israel

by

David Grossman: A Voice for Peace in Palestine

This is a collection of articles and speeches by novelist David Grossman, winner of the 2017 International Man Booker Prize. They span a period from July 2017 to June 2024, obviously taking in the barbaric attack of 7 October 2023. The book is a mere 87 pages long and exceptionally well written. It provides an intelligent and humane analysis of the problem of a just peace in Palestine, something Mr Grossman has spent decades campaigning for. It is a testament to his commitment that, despite the medeival horrors of 10/7 he remains convinced that “…it is impossible to begin resolving the Middle Eastern tragedy without offering a solution that alleviates the Palestinian’s suffering.”

His critique of Prime Minister Netanyahu is searing. He is equally critical of the ulta-Orthodox religious right who have a inappropriate and disproportionate say in the politics of the State of Israel. Promoting Eretz-Yisrael or Greater Israel, an area which has a number of definitions but certainly encompasses the current State of Israel, and the Palestinian Territories. It is this aspiration which “legitimises”, in their view, the settler movement in the West Bank and current demands for the same in Gaza.

Mr Grossman describes the Judaism he connects to as “…secular and humanist. It has faith in human beings. The only thing it holds sacred is human life.” You can imagine how acceptable this definition of Judaism is to those of the religious right who call for the State to go to War for a Greater Israel but “…refuse to send their own children to military service because, according to their faith, praying and studying Torah is what guarantees the continued existence of the Jewish people…”. Their single minded labours aim to preserve the purity of their contested view of the faith which sees God as being in the real estate business and having promised them the land of Palestine 2000 years ago.

What is interesting about the book is how it charts the growing stranglehold of PM Netanyahu and his actions to undermine, not just the rights of the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, but also those of Arab citizens within the State of Israel. Mr Grossman sees all the actions of the Netanyahu government as being focussed on keeping alive and raw the wound that is the relationship between Israel and its Arab citizens and those in the occupied territories. He characterises the Nationality Law of 2018, which defines Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people and reserves the right of self determination to the Jewish people alone as a “…renunciation of the chance to ever end the conflict with the Palestinians.”

The articles in this collection remain optimistic and chart the growing internal opposition to Netanyahu. The demonstrations and marches against his attempts to consolidate his power and limit the rule of law were particularly vocal in the run up to 10/7. Despite the horrific terrorist atrocities of that day Grossman remains committed to negotiations and a move to a two state solution as the only viable route to a lasting peace.

Beyond this however Mr Grossman provides an insight into some of the psychological and other fears which shape Jewish thinking. Fears which certainly cannot be dismissed as irrational and which have an equal right to be addressed and must be part of any comprehensive solution in Palestine.

First among these fears is the pervasive view of the provisional nature of the State of Israel. Interestingly, this is not just seen as something driven by the hostile military objectives in the Hamas Charter of 1988 unabated in the eyes of Israel by the substantial revisions to that Charter in 2017, nor in chants about a Palestinian state from the Mountains to the Sea.

But more subtly than these attacks are the seemingly positive comments of supporters like the oft repeated formula by American Presidents that the US supports “Israel’s right to exist”. This phrase, although it challenges the opposite, subliminally concedes the possibility that such a right is not a given.

Another related but distinct issue is the attacks on Israel by its enemies. The objective of their campaigns against Israel is not simply to win a war against the Israeli state it is to abolish the state altogether. As Mr Grossman puts it “…Israel is the only country in the world whose elimination can be openly called for.” At the extreme end of this view is the antisemitic desire to eradicate the Jewish nation and people not just its state.

Mr Grossman asks the fundamental question, “Why is Israel – of the planet’s 195 countries – alone in being conditional, as if its existence depended on the goodwill of the other nations of the world.”

Mr Grossman also rejects the “intolerable”attempt to “…force the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into a colonialist discourse.” Arguing that colonialism can only be carried out by external nation states, and that as Israel does not have a state elsewhere it cannot be engaged in colonialism.

You can see why a people who have been persecuted and discriminated against in countries across Europe and beyond, and been subject to the most extreme attempt at industrial genocide the world has ever seen, would be extremely nervous about losing the safe haven of a nation state. This nervousness may at times become an existential panic resulting in a violent and disproportionate response to any form of challenge, perceived or real.

There are elements of Mr Grossman’s position that could be challenged. Being by far the most powerful military force in the region, the only one with a nuclear weapon capacity, and having the might of the United States foursquare behind it should allay some of the fears of its “provisional” nature. It is also the case that the vast majority of the nations on the planet recognise Israel as a legitimate member of the community of independent states.

Some of that sense of provisionality may stem from the manner in which the State was first established. One might argue this was by, “…the goodwill of the other nations of the world…” first in the actions of the League of Nations and secondly in the United Nations. Obviously, there were a range of other forces in play, not least the manouverings of declining imperial powers, notably France and Great Britain. Whatever its origins the world must, and in the vast majority do accept, the legitimacy of the State of Israel.

I fear the rejection of the colonialist model as applied to the actions of the Israeli State depends on an essentialist definition of colonialism relying on the preexistence of a colonialist state elsewhere as the aggressor. Whilst this might be a part of the definition there are key elements of the colonialist model, in the eviction of a preexisting peoples from their home lands and the repopulating of those lands by people from elsewhere which prima facie looks like it could be applied to the actions of the State of Israel.

Whilst there are parts of Mr Grossman’s argument which could be open to challenge, the tone and thrust of the book is exceptional. His analysis of the direction being followed by the current administration under PM Netanyahu is well-informed and trenchant. Despite the brutality of 10/7, Mr Grossman still argues for a negotiated settlement and a two state solution. In the end it is probably only this which will end the constant fear of the Israeli people about the provisional nature of the State of Israel. It is a book which everyone concerned about the current tragedy of Palestine should read.

The Thinking Heart. David Grossman. Johnathan Cape London 2024.

by

Gaza Buffer Zone: Impact on Population Density

Early on in the conflict in Gaza Israel unilaterally decided to create a buffer zone stretching from the top right hand corner of Gaza ie. the North East corner by Beit Hanoun down to the Egyptian border. A distance of approximately 48 kilometres. The zone would be 1 kilometre wide so would steralise 48 square kilometres of Gaza territory.

Gaza comprises 360 square kilometres per the CIA World Fact Book which also records a population in the Strip of 2.1m people. This works out at 5,833 persons per square kilometre (ppsqk). This slightly more than London at 5,608 ppsqk but less than Tokyo at 6,362 ppsqk. When the 48 square kilometre’s are taken off however Gaza’s populations density increases to 6,730 ppsqk exceeding that of Tokyo.

Of course the Gaza strip is not a City it is a… territory. If you were to compare with a nearby country, say Israel the population density there is circa 400 ppsqkm.

The reason for the buffer zone is to protect against another 10/7. But there is currently a 20 foot high fence around the whole of Gaza and a blockade of its coastal waters. Will a kilometre wide buffer provide greater security? Or will it just reduce further the land available in the occupied territory?

by

“plus ca change”

A deadly attack on the al-Tabin school by the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) was justified on the grounds that it was a command and control centre for Hamas terrorists. Hospitals have also been attacked because of the terrorists alleged to be hiding there. This betrays a very inclusive definition of terrorists which has been maintained for a long time by the IDF. The cartoon below was produced by Gary Trudeau in 1982 and seems to capture the expansive view that continues to be adopted.

It is uncomfortable finding humour in such matters. The cartoon relates to when the the PLO was driven out of Beirut by the IDF, which was followed by a massacre of Palestinian and Lebanese Shia refugees in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps.

The massacre at the time involved the killing of somewhere between 1,300 and 3,500 civilians and was condemned by the UN General Assembly as an act of genocide. The US and a number of other nations objected to the term genocide. As the number of those killed approaches 40k and the number of cultural, religious, educational and medical buildings are flattened when will the definition of genocide become appropriate?

The power of the Trudeau cartoon is its revealing the absurdity of claims which are so extreme as to be absurd. Claims which attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

Doonesbury cartoon taken from “The Hundred Years War on Palestine” by R. Khalidi. Profile Books 2020.

by

Defence? Existential Threat?

I do not understand how the leaders of the United States and the United Kingdom can continue to provide diplomatic cover, weapons and military support to Israel. The latest outrage, killing 90 and injuring 300 others in a safe area only confirms this is not a war against Hamas it is against the Palestinians. It was allegedly aimed at two Hamas leaders. It will be interesting to see how the doctrine of proportionality is applied to this.

The justification is that Israel has an absolute right to defend itself against the existential treat posed by the terrorist organisation Hamas, who are responsible for all the civilian deaths because they hide amongst them.

I may be missing something, but I think this justification has limited merit at best and none in relation to the scale and nature of the response to the atrocity.

On 10/7 approximately 1,200 Israelis were murdered and in addition “over 230” Israelis were taken hostage in a barbaric attack. Since the commencement of the war on Hamas, according to Wikipeadia, up until 24 May 2024, an additional 1,478 Israelis had died, giving a total of 2,678 Israeli’s killed at that point.

Over the same period approximately 35,500 Palestinians had died, many civilians, women and children. Killed in what appears to be an indiscriminate bombing campaign.

In addition Gaza has been reduced to rubble making most of its 2m plus inhabitants homeless, reduced to living in temporary accommodation without adequate, water, food, or medical support which it will take decades to recover from. In the West Bank some 500 Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli Defence Force or illegal settlers.

This is what an absolute right to defend oneself against an existential threat against a perfidious enemy who hides behind civilians looks like.

But does the justification that leads to such carnage stand up to scrutiny. The justification is not new. It is one which has been deployed by successive Israeli administrations.

Indeed, the State of Israel has been defending itself since its self-declaration in 1948, occasionally by taking pre-emptive actions against anticipated attacks, as in the Arab Israeli war of 1967.

What is common, and quite remarkable, in all of these campaigns of self-defence is how much territory Israel has gained at the expense of the Palestinians. The two maps below show the original borders of the Jewish and Arab States as proposed by the UN in 1947 and the current plan per PM Netanyahu.

The Israeli state is clearly very adept at defending itself. Existential threats have consistently failed in the past.  However, to be fair, the fact such threats have failed in the past does not mean such a threat does not exist now.

So, how credible is Hamas as a threat to the existence of Israel?

Comparing the relative military capacity of Israel and Hamas using rough and ready numbers secured mainly from the CIA World Fact Book shows that Israel has between 250 and 350 jet fighter bombers / Hamas has some (number unknown) Microlites; Israel has 170,000 trained military personnel on active service and 300,000 trained reservists / Hamas has between 40,000 and 50,000 trained soldiers; Israel has circa 1,300 tanks, 7 Corvette Warships, circa 90 Nuclear Warheads / Hamas has nil tanks, nil warships, nil nuclear warheads.

Israel receives c$3.5-$4bn per annum in military support from the United States and can freely import munitions and supplies from around the world.  Hamas is provided with rockets from Iran which have to get through an air, sea and land blockade into Gaza. The rockets when fired have to get through the Iron Dome missile defence system which is claimed to be effective in intercepting 90% of missiles targeted on Israel.

In terms of supporters, Israel has the United States, and that support becomes “ironclad” when any third party threat (Iran) seems imminent. When the War on Hamas started the US moved 14 warships into the Eastern Mediterranean to deter any such threat.

If Isael was engaged in a conventional war against Hamas, then Hamas wouldn’t even come second.

But, of course, it is not a conventional war. The Israeli Defence Force (IDF) has made much of the immorality of Hamas using the civilian population as a shield. As I have pointed out elsewhere this moral high ground is more than undermined by the IDF’s willingness to shoot through that shield.

But if we consider for a moment the logic of the critique by the IDF in the context of the asymmetric balance of military power. It amounts to a demand that Hamas, commit suicide.

Terrorists around the world, like the ANC in South Africa, The IRA in Great Britain, the Vietcong in Vietnam, and indeed the Irgun in Israel in 1946 have refused to fight fairly. They have refused to take head on the overwhelming military supremacy of an occupying power.  

The truth is there is no existential threat, this is not defence. At best it is ethnic cleansing. Unfortunately, the group being cleansed have nowhere to go. Which means the longer this goes on the less it looks like ethnic cleansing and the more it looks like genocide.

What is happening in Gaza and the West Bank is obviously a moral outrage. The longer our government continues to support it the lower our moral and diplomatic standing in the world. This is not and will not be mitigated by appeals to our having exhorted the Israeli government to stick within the rules of International Humanitarian Law.

What is happening needs to be condemned unequivocally. Further, there should be an immediate recognition of the State of Palestine. After 77 years the recommendation of the United Nations should be given some support on the Palestinian not just the Israeli side. Recognition would perhaps lead to a stronger commitment to serious negotiations on the Israeli side.

Whilst what is happening to the Palestinian people is horrendous and their capacity to respond in kind is nonexistent, my concern is not just for them. The Israeli people have been taken down a path by Prime Minister Netanyahu which will have, I fear, serious consequences for them. It will obviously be a moral stain difficult to eradicate and one which has and will continue to shift global public opinion against Israel.

Even when the “war” ends, as independent reviews of what happened are conducted, there will be a drawn-out documentation of atrocities.  Surely, it will start on 10/7, but then it will proceed. Covering month after month after month of death and destruction wrought on the Palestinian people. Slowly building a picture which is almost certain to undermine the credibility of the claim that Israel had to defend itself against an existential threat.

Ironically, and sadly, it may prove that the Israeli defence has created more of an existential threat than the Hamas attack.