(Traduce en español/translate to Spanish / Arabic الترجمة العربية / Hebrew תרגום לעברית)

By Brian E. Frydenborg (Twitter @bfry1981, LinkedIn, Bluesky, Facebook, Substack with exclusive informal content) October 6, 2025; because of YOU, Real Context News surpassed one million content views on January 1, 2023, but I still need your help, please keep sharing my work and consider also donating as I make my overdue comeback! Real Context News produces commissioned content for clients upon request at its discretion.

SILVER SPRING—On paper, officially, “legally,” both the West Bank and the United States have clear ways that security forces are to bound to be applied from any central governing authority in particular areas, deferring to local forces and limiting the roles of those coming from outside. But as both Israel and the U.S. implode politically on the eve of the two-year anniversary of the October 7 Hamas terrorist pogrom against Israel and the beginning of the even larger mass-killing of Israel’s Gaza campaign, it is important to understand how far from reality this description actually ends up being under the current crises both nation nations face.

Wrecking Boundaries in the West Bank

But in the West Bank, Israeli leaders have long ignored many of these supposed restrictions at will, none more so from the top than extremist Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.  The West Bank is by far the largest of the three Palestinian territories forming the State of Palestine and occupied during the Six Day-War in June 1967 by the Israel Defense Forces (or IDF, i.e., the Israeli army) and still illegally occupied after all these years (the other Palestinian areas being the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem).  For decades, Israel has illegally colonized these lands and transferred some of its Jewish population illegally to form illegal Jewish settler communities—often of religious fanatics—on Palestinian land, sometimes ethnically cleansing Palestinian communities in the process.   Netanyahu, a champion of the settler movement often nicknamed “Bibi,” has served more time as prime minister than any Israeli, including Israeli founding father David Ben-Gurion; indeed, Netanyahu seems willing to do just about anything to maintain power, including repeatedly prolonging the current horrific “war” (a term loosely applied) in Gaza.  Since the 1993 Oslo peace process began, a three-tiered system is supposed to govern whether Israelis or Palestinians hold civil or security authority in the West Bank: Area A (Palestinian security and civil), Area B (Israeli security, Palestinian civil), and Area C (Israeli security and civil).  In reality, Israel treats all areas as if it can do whatever it pleases whenever it pleases: new illegal Israeli settlements in the middle of Palestinian land, abrupt arrests of Palestinian officials trying to exercise their duties, or raids deep into the heart of the most populous Palestinian cities care not what lines on the map say, and the Israeli political and military leaders have also long since stopped caring (Netanyahu himself bragged repeatedly over the years up through the present about killing the Oslo process that even brought these three Areas about).

Your Posse Is Not Legal, Mr. President

In the United States, possible tensions between the civil and military spheres preoccupied the Founding Fathers so much so that there was no official permanent standing army established by the Constitution and George Washington himself was lionized as a hero in the mold of Cincinnatus for stepping down from supreme military power when his duty was done (and as much for that as anything else he ever did, which says a lot).  There was a bold, idealistic, prescient experiment in Reconstruction (1865-1877)—really the last phase of the U.S. Civil War (1861-1865) over slavery—to bring about multiracial democracy that achieved much relying on the deployment and backing of federal troops before succumbing to white supremacist terrorist insurrections throughout the recalcitrant South.  Some dynamics during Reconstruction in the South in key ways resembled the West Bank in that whites in the South eventually used lawless means to establish control over security forces and courts to create a separate-and-unequal system, violating Reconstruction-era constitutional amendments and laws to instead impose a pre-apartheid apartheid system on newly-freed people in the South that would come to be known as the Jim Crow “legal” system and would take most of a century to dismantle.

Simultaneously, while Reconstruction wound down as a failed experiment, Americans were uneasy about the fact that the newly mighty U.S. military after the Civil War had been used so much in civil affairs in formerly rebel southern states, so the Posse Comitatus Act was passed in 1878 to more clearly define the U.S. civil-military divide, already quite strong without it.  The law further codified that the federal military cannot be used for domestic civilian law enforcement purposes with a few exceptions for special, unique, and extreme circumstances often as laid out in very specific laws.  This law was passed in 1878 shortly after Reconstruction ended by both the House and Senate with comfortable margins and signed into law by then-President Rutherford B. Hayes.  The exceptions allow the president to work around or go over the Act in times of severe emergencies.

While there are some issues of “ambiguity” in the Posse Comitatus Act, the long tradition of taking great care with the use of military forces on U.S. soil in non-war settings is clear and Trump’s domestic military deployments in 2025 are not ambiguous in that his premises for deploying them to begin with were flat-out-false or grotesquely unproven, unsubstantiated assertions (“untethered to the facts,” in federal Judge Karin Immergut’s words from her ruling after an emergency hearing in Oregon late yesterday; for this, permanent caricature and White House Deputy Chief Staff Stephen Miller irresponsibly and dangerously called her actions a “legal insurrection” that aids “an organized terrorist attack on the federal government and its officers,” yet another proclamation of open season on the judiciary).  The Trump Administration’s wild claims are contrary to existing publicly available information, with no serious attempts made to counter such information with a proper presentation of demonstrably better or updated information as would be expected under a normal, functioning government.  And though he has far more authority to deploy troops to the District of Columbia, of which I live just outside (so yes, I have seen these illegally deployed forces many times and spoken with them), false premises were still articulated for the DC deployment, so it was still, therefore, illegal before any other considerations are raised (despite raising concerns about the statistics for crime in DC, Trump authorized deployments to the District outside of any federal process to review, challenge, or improve crime statistics reporting in Washington, a common problem many cities confront, and the U.S. Department of Justice only initiated an investigation after Trump’s deployment; any effort to demonstrate any sort of adherence to proper procedure would have seen the investigation happen and conclude far before any military deployment, prove the statistics are clearly false, and demonstrate that officials in Washington were bad-faith and not cooperating or responding to good-faith efforts to obtain cooperation or improve said statistics).

Plenty of scholars have also pointed out that both the intent and context of Posse Comitatus Act and its related laws at the times they were enacted and the spirits with which they have been enforced since are incompatible with Trump’s machinations, not just legally but also constitutionally.  And the main exceptions allowed for and invoked under the 1807 Insurrection Act are for situations totally different than the country finds itself in today: it and precursor legislation saw thirty events in U.S. history result in invocation since 1792, the most recent occurrence for the 1992 L.A. riots. This was notably at the request of California’s governor at the time, the opposite of Trump’s baseless, illegal and unconstitutional deployments there now in 2025.

West Banking America

But the point is, whether in the West Bank of the United States, there are clear restrictions on a.) military forces being deployed in normal circumstances and, even in extraordinary circumstances, b.) when, c.) where, and d.) how they can be deployed.

Yet as noted, for years, Israel and especially Netanyahu have ignored these restrictions whenever they have felt like it and, indeed, have increasingly attacked the idea that these restrictions have any validity whatsoever.  In short, the law is treated as whim, and everyone knows the dirty truth deep down that even some Israelis can admit: the West Bank is an apartheid system, based on religion and ethnicity: ethnic and religious Jews with Israeli citizenship in the West Bank are accorded full Israeli civil rights in the face of Israeli authority, while, in practice, Palestinians (be they Muslim or Christian) have no rights at all and are totally subject to whatever whims and depredations the military rule of the Israeli state and its supporters mete out, up to and including mass vandalism, rampant property destruction, prodigious assaults, orchestrated ethnic cleansing, rarely-punished murders (even of Palestinian-Americans), and indefinite child detention, whether from official government security forces or any number of Jewish settlers engaging increasingly in terrorism with the state’s backing, sometimes far more than tacit.  Even before October 7 in 2023, that year was still the deadliest year for Palestinians in the West Bank since the Second Intifada that ended in 2005, meaning the deliberate escalation in the West Bank by Israel has little to do with October 7, and settlers have even attacked positions of their own IDF in the West Bank when such settlers feel they are not being given enough impunity, showing their lawlessness knows no bounds.  Essentially, you have rights or not based on who Israeli authorities want to have rights there, and they award them to their side while denying them to the other.  Lines on maps, the law, human rights (for those they deemed unworthy) meant nothing, but rewarding their supporters and punishing their opponents is everything.

What has been the obvious “legal” reality for many years in the West Bank—only intensifying more and more over time both qualitatively and quantitatively and now exploding—is now something Trump wants to recreate for all America, turning the whole country into a Wild West Bank of Lawlessness.

But where for Israel, the divides are relatively simple and easy—Jewish vs. Palestinian—here it’s MAGA against everyone, even sometimes other MAGA (some Trump voters are now seeing friends, coworkers, and family members deported, detained, or arrested, even veterans).  If you are a U.S. citizen supporting what Trump is doing and your family and friends also match this description, you have little to worry about when it comes to this (for now…).  But if you are an immigrant who is undocumented/unauthorized who has no criminal record, a legal non-citizen resident—even one showing up for your own immigration hearing—or a U.S. citizen who is either ready to exercise your constitutional rights to ask questions, protest, and confront what is happening or is just at the wrong place at the wrong time, you are not necessarily protected by the law anymore.  Furthermore, by far the vast majority of the human beings being detained and deported are non-violent and non-criminal, whatever nonsense is claimed to the contrary by whomever in power.  And the masked, large, tattooed, angry individuals newly minted as ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents in paramilitary style and other federal fun folks are here to make sure you do not feel safe.  Are you an elected official, including a sitting U.S. Senator, simply asking questions of federal officials?  It does not matter, you can be handcuffed or bodyslammed with the least-protected among us.

Like Netanyahu and too many Israeli leaders in years before, Trump and his similarly extreme, similarly-minded counterparts are hell-bent on erasing, de facto or de jure, the lines the Posse Comitatus Act solidified in the sand on the limits of the use of federal military in a civilian setting, lines for principles clearly enshrined by U.S. Constitution and over two centuries of precedent, principles the Trump Administration is shredding not just in the streets of American cities but even partly also in the waters off the coast of Venezuela.

In seeking to erase legal rules binding the authorization, deployment, and use of federal military forces on U.S. soil in civilian settings (leaving similar jurisdictional mission creep in Venezuela aside), Trump and his MAGA minions with illegal occupation in America are trying to recreate key aspects of the fascist nightmare of the illegally occupied West Bank.  But here in the U.S., this is not based on two warring and competing nationalities and one of those nationalities’ democratically elected leaders pursuing total subjugation at best or actual genocide of the other nationality at worst, broadcast daily for all the world to see and fueled by insane colonialist, imperialist, expansionist fever-dreams based on ancient fantasies and ancient maps, no.  Here in the U.S., Trump is trying to divide Americans on ideological, political, identity, and legal-status lines, lines he will use to award and protect rights for some, deny them to others, still dangle to yet others as ways of obtaining “obeying in advance” or to even explicitly threaten, say, ABC and Disney over a certain late-night host named Kimmy Kimmel.  As JB Pritzker, the Democratic governor of Illinois fighting back against Trump’s illegal military deployments to Chicago, noted during that drama: “Tyranny requires constant effort.  It breaks, it leaks.  Authority is brittle.  Oppression is the mask of fear.  Remember that,” quoting the amazing antifascist masterpiece that is the Star Wars show Andor.  Yet, we must also remember that, however much Trump and Netanyahu act out of fear of losing power, they are also clearly in the drivers’ seats, consolidating more and more power for themselves in ways the founder fathers of both the U.S. and Israel never intended.

And while there is hardly the level of violence between the sides as in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict even as political violence in the U.S. may be on the rise, dynamics are between the two have been converging somewhat for some time and make no mistake about it, the key principle is the same: longstanding, binding legal distinctions are melting away in the face of determined illegality, such that the law disappears and factional whim reigns supreme so one side can enforce its will upon the other, tyranny replacing law as the very system.  In short, Trump seeks to create a political apartheid here in the U.S., a West Bank of Left and Right, “evil” and “good,” veering Manichaean and not dissimilar in legal nihilism to the separate and unequal system of Jew and Palestinian (or “Arab,” so much less specific…) in the West Bank’s Nablus but bringing it to New York.

Adding New Meaning to “Executing” the Law

To execute their plans, both Trump and Netanyahu have hosts of extremists willing to unquestioningly nakedly embrace the partisanship of their missions, from U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, from U.S. Secretary of “War” Pete Hegseth to Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich (all of whom have had their own past issues with illegality or criminal probes well-before 2025: Ben-Gvir and Smotrich being convicted and arrested terrorists, respectively; Bondi in the center of a criminal bribery and obstruction scandal with Trump; and the brotastic Pete Hegseth, well, being brotastic Pete Hegseth…), just to name a few, with far, far too many others alongside.  And these allies have made it clear, sometimes as senior law enforcement officials: if we don’t like you, the law cannot protect you from us and we are coming for you, even for your children.  While in Israel, broadening this behavior to include Israeli Jewish citizens has been far milder than what has been done to Palestinians—even those in Israel with Israeli citizenship but especially those without Israeli citizenship outside of Israel in the actual territories of actual Palestine—Trump and his lawless allies are rapidly casting a far wider dragnet, or at least attempting to do so, advancing on several fronts even as I write this.

Yes, you are witnessing the MAGA Trump Administration’s attempts at illegal jurisdictional jumps dehumanizingly intending to target both directly and indirectly various large swaths of the population in America, illegal deployment by illegal deployment, related measure by related measure, until Trump has created a de facto national federalized police state he can use to prosecute and intimidate his opposition and others deemed undesirable, jurisdictional issues and the law be damned.  They have lost the program when it comes morality, cartoonishly celebrating their roles as oppressors (of certain people) and projecting so publicly for all to see.

Maybe a lot of this should not be surprising, since both men have no problem breaking the law: Trump is an insurrectionist and convicted felon and Netanyahu is currently on trial in three cases in Israel for damning corruption crimes (with Trump, unsurprisingly in true birds-of-a-feather mode, even very publicly pressuring Israel to stop Netanyahu’s trial) in addition to having the International Criminal Court issue a warrant for his arrest in 2024 for war crimes.  Both men are fascists remaking their countries in a fascist image of their former democracies, the actions mentioned herein just some of the examples (I do not use the term “fascist” lightly, but carefully and specifically and with history in mind).

At this point, one really has to wonder if either the U.S. or Israel can still be fairly termed “democracies,” because in key ways, the rule of law is damaged, dying, or dead as both Israel and the U.S.—Bibi and Donnie—continue to feed, rather than restrain, each other’s worst tendencies.

But it is both too easy and too simple to blame just such leaders: voters in both countries could have easily set their countries on different paths—ones that respected the rule of law—and voters in both countries rejected, even if narrowly, the rule of law in favor of Trump, Netanyahu, and the fascism they represent, whether they realize it or not.  And perhaps nothing screams fascist more than violently taking away legal protections for the most vulnerable and defenseless and, in turn, their allies in order to expose the chosen to ever more deprivation and violence at the hands of the same people taking away their rights and protections.

In the current state of Israel’s short history, this could simply mean the end of Israeli democracy.  In the U.S. context, this would be like the success of white supremacist terrorists during Reconstruction in brutally taking away Freedmen’s rights throughout the south, except that Trump is engaging in this massive ripping away of rights not in one region but in the whole country.  2025 may yet be known a watershed year for America, Israel, and Palestine, but only for the most horrific, sad, pathetic, and—perhaps most importantly—most preventable of ways.

See all of Brian’s work on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict here.

© 2025 Brian E. Frydenborg all rights reserved, permission required for republication, attributed quotations welcome

Also see Brian’s eBook, A Song of Gas and Politics: How Ukraine Is at the Center of Trump-Russia, or, Ukrainegate: A “New” Phase in the Trump-Russia Saga Made from Recycled Materials, available for Amazon Kindle and Barnes & Noble Nook (preview here).

If you appreciate Brian’s unique content, you can support him and his work by donating here; because of YOU, Real Context News surpassed one million content views on January 1, 2023. Real Context News produces commissioned content for clients upon request at its discretion.

Feel free to share and repost this article on LinkedIn, Facebook, Threads, and Twitter. If you think your site or another would be a good place for this or would like to have Brian generate content for you, your site, or your organization, please do not hesitate to reach out to him!

Twelfth episode on Palestine and Israel—history as well as the current violence—with Palestinian Journalist, Analyst, & Author Rula Jebreal (follow her on Twitter and Instagram and check out her Muck Rack profile here)

Even before October 7, Palestinians and Gazans in particular had been suffering from 3/4s of a century of displacement and oppression. Then, Hamas carried out the most most lethal attack against Jews since the Holocaust, killing some 1,200 Israelis who were mostly civilians and captured some 240 Israelis who Hamas took as hostages into the Gaza Strip. Israel’s reaction was to cut off nearly all supplies to the Gaza Strip, the enclave blocked and partly controlled by Israel that Hamas partly governs, and to launch the most intense military assault anywhere in decades. That history and the current assault are among the topics we discuss.

Rula is uniquely qualified to talk about this history: she has lived it. Born to an African Imam father who worked the Al-Aqsa compound in Jerusalem’s Old City and a Palestinian mother, Rula lost her mother at 5 and her father gave her to an orphanage in East Jerusalem, and the remarkable woman who founded and ran the orphanage became a mother to Rula, who raised her as a Palestinian. Rula’s novel Miral tells the story of several generations of these women living through the tumultuous history of Israel and Palestine and was turned into a movie starring Freida Pinto, Willem Dafoe, and Vanessa Redgrave, the screenplay of which Rula wrote. She holds Israeli citizenship as well as Italian citizenship, as Italy was where lived and worked as a journalist for many years. Her journalism and analysis has taken her around the world, into war zones and the studios of some of the major news networks around the world. On top of all these achievements, she is also a college professor in Miami. The following is my discussion with her.

Notes:

Rula’s novel Miral and the movie based on it

Since I mentioned her unique Vogue profile and photoshoot shot by the legendary Annie Leibovitz:

Some of Rula’s coverage of the current situation:

CNN interview

Washington Post interview also featuring major Israeli opposition politician and former Foreign Minister and Justice Minister Tzipi Livni

France24 interview

Rula on the issues prior to Oct 7:

The awesome video of Ben Shapiro being trounced by Rula

Her New York Times op-ed on being a minority in Israel

Yahoo News profile of Rula

New York Times profile of Rula

Rula on the rise of global fascism on MSNBC

and my take on the same

My article on Israeli vs. American COIN (counterinsurgency)

My take on Israel’s apartheid system in the West Bank

My deep-dive on the 2014 Gaza war and the history of the conflict

The HBO and Israeli Channel 12 miniseries Our Boys I mentioned that highlights the Jewish anti-Palestinian incitement in Israeli society and based on true events from 2014 is discussed here in Time and in The New York Times in the context of Netanyahu accusing it of being “anti-Semitic;” more coverage of the miniseries in The New Yorker and The New York Times; reviews from Variety and CNN

DONATE TO HELP THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE AND ISRAEL

Palestine Red Crescent Society is basically the Red Cross in Gaza and the rest of Palestine.

IsraAID is Israel’s largest humanitarian organization.

Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders (MSF), a deeply experienced organization, has provided emergency medical services for people in Gaza for many years.

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) is the UN agency specifically tasked with helping Palestinians.  Several of its aid workers have already been killed in the current round of violence.

The American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee is one of the largest Jewish-focused philanthropic organizations in the world and is helping Israelis on the ground.

Save the Children is one of the premier international aid organizations and has long-operated in Gaza.

© 2023-2024 Brian E. Frydenborg all rights reserved, permission required for republication, attributed quotations welcome

Consider donating if you appreciate this content. Also see Brian’s deep-dive on the 2014 Israel-Hamas war.

Feel free to share and repost this article on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter. If you think your site or another would be a good place for this or would like to have Brian generate content for you, your site, or your organization, please do not hesitate to reach out to him!

By Brian E. Frydenborg (Twitter @bfry1981, LinkedIn, Facebook, Substack with exclusive informal content, my Linktree with all my public links/profiles) November 14, 2023

(Arabic الترجمة العربية / Hebrew תרגום לעברית) The second article in a series of special reports about the 2023 Israel-Hamas-Middle East Crisis; because of YOU, Real Context News surpassed one million content views on January 1, 2023, but I still need your help, please keep sharing my work and consider also donating! Real Context News produces commissioned content for clients upon request at its discretion. Also, Brian is running for U.S. Senate for Maryland and you can learn about his campaign here.

WARNING: Major spoilers for The Lord of the Rings films and books, including The Hobbit

SILVER SPRING—One of the only things that unites Israelis and Palestinians, I was surprised to learn on the ground in my more than five years living and working in the Middle East, was a shared love and passion for the universe of J. R. R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings.  I found Israelis and Palestinians making references, and several of my Palestinian-Jordanian friends, as they drove me to go see one of the new Hobbit films, even already knew by heart the Dwarves’ song from the first Hobbit film about reclaiming their lost homeland of Erebor, from which they had to flee amid fiery death and destruction from above from the dragon Smaug and had since lived in diaspora exile as refugees: I didn’t think about the thematic overlap at the time, but the resonance for any Palestinian is clear.  One of my Jordanian friends, feeling a lot of sympathy for the Palestinian cause but also (increasingly rarely from that side and vice versa) sympathy for Israelis suffering, just sent me the clip from the end of The Two Towers, when Frodo is despairing and Sam tells him, after being asked “What are we holding onto, Sam?”: “That there’s some good in this world, Mr. Frodo, and it’s worth fighting for.”

An Israeli I know and met through someone who hosted me in Israel before was just called up as a reservist and is deployed.  He has since posted the same scene in a meme with Hebrew captions.  He has posted other Lord of the Rings memes and videos throughout, including seeing his brothers in uniform as the heroes and even portraying his own extremist Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—whom most Israelis by far blame for failing Israel in this situation and want his resignation—and his extremist allied ministers as the heroes’ enemies from the films; and I have seen other Israelis posting Lord of the Rings­-themed content, too.

Perhaps one of the most human things Tolkien accomplished is that such a wide global array of diverse peoples are able to channel his literature and the films based on them as a way to cope with and express their own pain, how when they are deeply down and dark and despairing, they are also able to find hope in Tolkien.

It’s deeply inspiring because of the common humanity it proves we can all share, even on the opposite sides of brutal wars.  Tolkien even has a beautiful passage of empathy for soldiers on the other side of a conflict:

…Then suddenly straight over the rim of their sheltering bank, a man fell, crashing through the slender trees, nearly on top of them. He came to rest in the fern a few feet away, face downward, green arrow-feathers sticking from his neck below a golden collar. His scarlet robes were tattered, his corslet of overlapping brazen plates was rent and hewn, his black plaits of hair braided with gold were drenched with blood. His brown hand still clutched the hilt of a broken sword.

It was Sam’s first view of a battle of Men against Men, and he did not like it much. He was glad that he could not see the dead face. He wondered what the man’s name was and where he came from; and if he was really evil of heart, or what lies or threats had led him on the long march from his home; and if he would not really rather have stayed there in peace…

(in the movies, Faramir gets this speech)

I was rewatching the film trilogy recently precisely because I am currently profoundly depressed about so many things right now, from the Middle East to Ukraine to issues in my own life, and Peter Jackson’s masterful Lord of the Rings trilogy is one of the only things in the whole wide world that can consistently cheer me up.  And there were repeated scenes that made me viscerally identify with the experiences and suffering of both Palestinians and Israelis.

Gondor lives always in the shadow of Mordor, always suffering from raids from Sauron’s Orcs.  They never feel a full sense of security in some parts of the realm, and it made me think of how Israelis have for years put up with terrorist attacks from Palestinians and how Palestinians in the West Bank have for years put up with terrorism from Israeli settlers.  I see the women and children in the Glittering Caves behind Helm’s Deep cowering in fear as the Saruman’s Uruk-hai terrify them from the outside with their thunderous assault and inhuman cries, as well as the women and children of Minas Tirith cowering under bombardment from Mordor Orcs or how Rohan civilians had to flee the initial onslaught from Saruman and I think of Israeli civilians and Palestinian civilians in their homes under bombardment from rockets or missiles or bombs as terrorists or hostile forces invade their homes and even kill.  I think of all the loss felt by the Men, Elves, and Dwarves and how they “never forgave and never forgot” and both Israelis and Palestinians have suffered so much loss, even if not equally in quantity. Theoden, trapped and looking as if he and his people will face their end from the onslaught of Saruman’s Uruk-hai army, exclaims in horror: “So much death.  What can men do against such reckless hate?” How often has that been thought by Palestinians and Israelis in the recent weeks, days, and even hours?

So many times I have felt something akin to the depths of Theoden’s despair in recent years, in recent weeks.  And overall, I could not help but think of so much of the suffering in Israel and Palestine while I was watching these films this time.  I was still inspired and moved to tears as I always am when watching these films, but the experience was colored by a strong connection to the current horrors in our real world and left me deeply saddened that such scenes still exist in reality as opposed to fiction. And many other peoples around the world from Sudan to Ukraine are also experiencing similar monstrosities.

Amidst all this horror, there is something beautiful in that with both Israelis and Palestinians, many of them both love and cherish Tolkien and see both their suffering and inspiration in his work.  But what is also undeniable and heartbreaking is that many of each see themselves as the outnumbered forces of good fighting the hordes of evil and see the other as the Orcs, trolls, and Ringwraiths of Sauron.  Still, even this shows their common humanity amidst all the darkness.

See all of Brian’s work on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict here.

© 2023 Brian E. Frydenborg all rights reserved, permission required for republication, attributed quotations welcome

Also see Brian’s eBook, A Song of Gas and Politics: How Ukraine Is at the Center of Trump-Russia, or, Ukrainegate: A “New” Phase in the Trump-Russia Saga Made from Recycled Materials, available for Amazon Kindle and Barnes & Noble Nook (preview here).

If you appreciate Brian’s unique content, you can support him and his work by donating here; because of YOU, Real Context News surpassed one million content views on January 1, 2023. Real Context News produces commissioned content for clients upon request at its discretion.

Feel free to share and repost this article on LinkedIn, Facebook, Threads, and Twitter. If you think your site or another would be a good place for this or would like to have Brian generate content for you, your site, or your organization, please do not hesitate to reach out to him!

By Brian E. Frydenborg (Twitter @bfry1981, LinkedIn, Facebook, Substack with exclusive informal content, my Linktree with all my public links/profiles) October 18, 2023 (*UPDATE late evening October 18/early AM October 19: further analysis on hospital explosion); *UPDATE October 31: I had some massive technical issues on my site, and an update to the Hospital explosion story mysteriously disappeared, so I have redone that update to include even more information that has been coming out since then about the responsibility for the explosion); all casualty figures are according to respective local officials unless otherwise noted.

(Arabic الترجمة العربية / Hebrew תרגום לעברית) The second article in a series of special reports about the 2023 Israel-Hamas-Middle East Crisis.

See related July 28, 2014 article The Israel-Hamas Gaza High-Stakes Poker Game of Death; because of YOU, Real Context News surpassed one million content views on January 1, 2023, but I still need your help, please keep sharing my work and consider also donating! Real Context News produces commissioned content for clients upon request at its discretion. Also, Brian is running for U.S. Senate for Maryland and you can learn about his campaign here.

“How we choose to fight is just as important as what we fight for.”

—Ezra Bridger, Star Wars: Rebels

SILVER SPRING—As I wrote in my last piece, a level of violence has been perpetrated against the Jewish people not seen since the Holocaust and against Israelis like never before, a vile terrorist act by war criminals and legally constituting genocidal ethnic cleansing of an up-close-and-personal nature, in which an increasing toll of over 1,400 Israelis are now known to have been killed since October 7, the vast majority on that single day and defenseless civilians butchered in their homes or a at a peace-themed music and dance festival, in addition to over 4,200 wounded and some 200 hostages abducted into Gaza.

An Ugly Atmosphere but with Rays of Hope Thanks for Biden and Blinken

Obviously, emotions are running high and there are understandable calls for vengeance in the air in Israel.  But emotions and vengeance—and dehumanization—cannot be allowed to eclipse sensible policy that can bring about some of the best possible outcomes.  As America knows from its own “War on Terror,” in Israel’s current situation, counterproductive actions and mentalities will help no one, not Israelis, not Palestinians, not anyone else in the region except extremists who would bring about more death and destruction.  And keep in mind Gaza is one of the worst places anywhere to be conducting a military campaign as far as the 2.3 million local civilians are concerned: they cannot leave what has been called an “open-air prison” because of restrictions imposed by Israel—which, as I have noted in detail before, exercises much of the meaningful de facto sovereignty over the Gaza Strip—and Egypt, it is one of the most densely populated territories on earth, about half of the population is children, and the Palestinians in Gaza have been suffering from a humanitarian crisis for many years already.

Even considering, all this, Israel cannot tolerate a Hamas governing Gaza that is now trying to imitate ISIS, not after what Hamas did.

And so Israel must invade.

Unfortunately, already some 3,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed (before yesterday’s hospital bombing, discussed in measure 4), some 12,500 wounded, including whole families wiped out.  Those numbers are significantly increasing daily, with Israeli strikes still happening in the south of Gaza, right where Israel has told civilians to evacuate.  And while nobody knows how many Hamas members are included in those numbers, footage coming out of Gaza indicates most of the dead are civilians, especially as Hamas has access to its underground tunnel system that civilians do not and that many, perhaps most, Hamas dead would be buried underground in most strikes successfully targeting Hamas terrorists and fighters, therefore, many of them are likely not included in health officials’ body counts easily or quickly, if they even know there are tunnels underground in any given location, which they may not.

Yet even in this bleak atmosphere, I am heartened by U.S Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s shuttle diplomacy, President Joe Biden’s skilled behind-the-scenes engagement (as was the case with another Gaza flareup 2021), and other top Biden Administration officials’ diplomatic efforts.  In just days, they have already mitigated some of the worst: an initial, insane demand by Israel for all residents of the northern Gaza Strip—some 1.1 million people—to evacuate within twenty-four hours has seen that timeframe substantially extended (though it may still be a breach of international law, according to the United Nations), water service to Gaza has been partly restored by Israel (though from live interviews I saw on CNN two days ago, including with a senior United Nations humanitarian official, damage to the water infrastructure is so severe that only one of the main water pipes was functional, severely limiting the effect of the partial turning back on of the water supplied by Israel), and there is confused but progressing talks about opening the Rafah crossing between Gaza and Egypt to get foreign nationals out, humanitarian supplies in (five United Nations fuel trucks two days ago were allowed through but that is it so far), and perhaps letting some other civilians out (in fact, just as I was wrapping parts of this article up Monday night in what may be a major diplomatic achievement, Blinken announced—after a marathon negotiation session with Netanyahu under Hamas rocket fire (such attacks being war crimes)—that Israel had agreed to the delivery of humanitarian aid, that safe zones for civilians were a major topic of discussion, and that Biden would be coming to Israel and Jordan today (the Jordan leg was canceled shortly after the hospital disaster, discussed in measure 4).  Biden’s trip may very well delay Israel’s near-inevitable assault on Gaza, giving more time for civilians to evacuate and supplies to be delivered to Gazans, saving many lives.

If you track the public statements of both Biden and Blinken, it is clear they have been and are emphasizing—will continue to emphasize—these concerns about protecting Palestinians in their discussions with Israeli leaders; clearly, Israel began on a harder line and clearly the U.S. has been pushing back behind the scenes against some of Israel’s worst impulses as in convulses in grief.  Biden specifically has been emphatic in repeatedly standing up for the vast majority of Gazan Palestinian civilians who are innocent and have nothing to do with Hamas and has even made clear on one of the flagship U.S. news programs, CBS’s 60 Minutes, that it would be a “mistake” for Israel to reoccupy Gaza in the long-term and right after reiterated U.S. support for a two-state solution, which would much displease Netanyahu as he has been against this his entire career in action whatever deceitful verbiage he has uttered to the contrary and still is.  There remain serious obstacles—especially after that hospital tragedy—but knowing Biden and Blinken leading Israel’s closest ally in America are clearly, forcefully, and consistently prioritizing saving Palestinian civilian lives in their private interactions with Israeli officials and their public comments on the crisis are a serious source of hope for me.

Hamas Must Be Neutralized, But Civilians in Gaza Must Be a Priority (and that Would HELP Israel)

Before proceeding, let us condemn Hamas and make it clear that for all their flaws, Israel and Israeli Prime Minister Benajmin Netanyahu and his extremist government of right-wing religious zealots and bigots—and I have been extremely critical of them, even examining Israel’s moral flaws in its military targeting and tactics in great detail—are not the moral equivalent of Hamas, a terrorist group that had for quite some time also functioned as something of a government in Gaza but that now has veered in its brutality into ISIS territory and is resembling ISIS in this brutality more than it resembles its own version of itself from five years ago.  And in recent polling, it is also clear that Hamas is not very popular with Palestinians.  During this latest violence, Hamas is even telling Gaza’s civilians not to evacuate, framing leaving as allowing Israel to push Palestinians from their homes, take more Palestinian land, and enact ethnic cleansing; Israel, the U.S., the UK, the EU, NATO, and others have long claimed that Hamas is cynically using innocent Palestinian civilians as human shields, purposefully putting them in harm’s way to get them killed to turn global opinion against Israel and/or lessen the intensity of Israel’s attacks (the Israel Defense Forces, or IDF, claims Hamas is blocking civilians from evacuating, though despite this claim, at least some 600,000 Palestinians have evacuated from the north as of a few days ago).  While some prominent human rights organizations and other analysts argue the reality is complicated when it comes to whether or not Hamas uses civilians as human shields, what is fairly clear is Hamas cannot be trusted to look after the safety and welfare of the innocent civilians of Gaza, and it will certainly fail in its responsibilities to them.

But this does not mean that Israel can simply dump the entirety of the responsibility for the welfare of Palestinian civilians in Gaza on Hamas, shrug its shoulders, and do anything it feels like at this particularly emotional moment, with the consciousness of the global Jewish community, not just Israeli Jews, reeling in its worst collective moment in close to 80 years.

In short, the worst anti-Jewish pogrom since the Holocaust cannot be answered by one of the worst mass displacements in a generation: currently some 1.1 million Gazans being told to evacuate northern Gaza by Israel, without anywhere really safe to go.  Israel’s tragedy cannot be followed by cutting off food, water, fuel, and power to 2.3 million Gazans, including thousands of wounded, 50,000 pregnant women with 5,000 due to give birth in the coming month, and babies in incubators in hospitals who will surely die without power, water, fuel, and food.  One war crime atrocity, no matter how vile, cannot be answered by another war crime.  And while there is certainly legitimate concern as to Hamas appropriating some of any aid that would go into Gaza, the solution cannot be for Israelis to simply throw up their hands and block all aid.  And especially as the U.S. is the main guarantor of international law globally along with the United Nations and that Israel tries to sell itself to the world as abiding by international law in comparison to Hamas, both risk looking like gross hypocrites if the U.S. stands by Israel as commits war crimes.

This would play into arguments and/or propaganda and gaslighting from Russia, China, and others (sometimes rooted in legitimate concerns, many that do not hold up to scrutiny) that international law is a joke and that the West only applies international law to its enemies, not itself.  It is in time like this, though, that international law matters most as ultimately, no matter how horrific a terrorist attack a country might suffer, the response when there are credible accusations of serious violations of international law and war crimes being committed by the responding party cannot be “But look at these pictures of our dead babies!  Let us violate the rules!”  Such an emotional response suggests that international law can simply be set aside when rage and grief arise in response to barbarity on the part of one party, but the point of international law is to ensure fewer dead babies and civilians of all types overall.  Pictures of one side’s dead babies cannot be used to justify illegal war crimes leading to more dead babies on the other side: there may an inevitability to some dead babies on that other side, but international law is there to minimize the amount.  The laws of war must be upheld by all parties that profess to adhere to them regardless of how low another warring party may sink.  Sadly, we cannot expect much from Hamas but it is to Israel’s credit that compliance and conduct of a far highest caliber than Hamas is expected of it, not an unfair double standard.  Hamas’s failure, then, to honor its moral and legal obligations is not an invitation or an excuse for Israel to abandon its own moral and legal obligations.  Because once we view international law protecting the most vulnerable of innocent civilians in war time as something to be tossed aside when one side engages in atrocities, international law truly is meaningless can protect no one consistently.  The only solution is to follow international law even if those we are fighting do not, to have it protect some people some of the time, rather than nobody any of the time.

Unlike Hamas, Israel is a legally legitimate nation recognized within its 1967 borders by over 160 nations (with 165 total offering some form of recognition: the U.S. under Trump extended recognition beyond the 1967 borders and recognized Syria’s Israeli-occupied Golan Heights as Israeli territory, something of  a pariah move).  I know some people don’t like the reality that Israel has long-been a recognized legitimate state under international law but tough, and while people are free to and can even reasonably disagree over the justice and morality of establishing Israel as a state and the manner in which that happened, that Israeli is a recognized international state is history: that ship has sailed and there is no time machine going back to before Israel became a state in 1948.  But the privilege of having statehood as a legitimate nation and a democracy (at least within its proper borders if obviously not in the West Bank) that is a signatory to the major human rights conventions, that comes with the responsibility that it is rightly expected to follow international law, that it can and should be expected to follow all international laws regarding civilians in wars zones and to be held to those standards.  Sadly, while the international community and especially Hamas’s backers can and should press Hamas to do the same, Hamas is a terrorist organization that has a modus operandi of defying international law.

While Israel itself has a questionable track record on international law, there is not an equivalent record between the Israeli government and Hamas: they are not moral equals, and after what Hamas pulled off in its insane attack on October 7, Hamas has signed its own death warrant: the status quo is over and Israel simply cannot tolerate Hamas’s existence right at its border and near its communities any longer.  Israeli must neutralize Hamas (and its mini-me, Palestinian Islamic Jihad), whether destroying it, taking prisoners, some sort of exile, or otherwise demilitarizing (and destroying seems to be the most likely option given Hamas’s posture).  As is the situation with Ukraine’s fight against Russian colonialist imperialism, the “give peace a chance/there need to be negotiations to stop the war” crowd does not understand the reality of how Hamas on October 7 moved itself beyond the pale of what Israel can tolerate, let alone make peace with, and the Israeli voting public would absolutely not accept leaving Hamas in power in Gaza even is in some fantasy world the current government did: the coalition would collapse and voters would put in a new one that would continue with the campaign to remove Hamas.

But that last point only refers to Hamas.  Conversely, Netanyahu’s lack of willingness to engage in real negotiations with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah party running the West Bank through the Palestinian Authority (PA): the de jure Palestinian government in the West Bank propped up by Israel’s much more sovereign de facto “governance” there through its military for well over half a century now.  Fatah has long renounced violence against Israel and cooperated with Israel to prevent terrorism against Israelis, making Netanyahu’s longtime willingness to boost Hamas as a way to undermine its rival Fatah even more shameful—Israel even helped to create Hamas decades ago to do just this—and, as I have noted before, Israel should be engaging with Fatah even now, should have been for years, and advancing Palestinian statehood.  By not doing this at all, Netanyahu has literally incentivized violence by punishing cooperation and nonviolence over many years, sending the message that occupation, dispossession, and privation are the makeup of Israel’s long-term plan “for” Palestinians, and making Abbas and the PA look like mere collaborators in the eyes of Palestinians.

While Israel has to remove Hamas from power in Gaza and that means there will be many innocent Palestinians killed in the crossfire, that does not mean “anything” goes as far as Israel’s conduct, that all safety for civilians is Hamas’s responsibility, or that there cannot be some sensible measures not currently being undertaken by Israel that will make the situation far better, save many Palestinian and some Israeli lives, and lead to a better outcome for Israel and Gaza.

With that in mind, here are my thoughts on some sensible, very possible, very practical steps that if adopted can minimize the worst of what is to come, keep international public opinion from turning even more against Israel than it would otherwise, and minimize the risk of protests in perhaps the West Bank other nearby countries like Jordan and Egypt from boiling over while also reducing the chance that actors like Hezbollah and Iran will enter the conflict in a major way.

My Six-Point-Plan for Mitigating the Horror that Is to Come

So my very first two recommendations are as follows: especially as Gaza is surrounded on three of four sides by Israel and is mostly dependent on Israel for water, electricity, fuel, and food by Israeli design, receiving those supplies at deeply insufficient levels for Gazans even before October 7 (since 2007, day-in, day-out, most Palestinians are malnourished and much of the day there is no power), 1.) the collective punishment of cutting off of water, power, fuel, and food to 2.3 million Gazan Palestinians must end.

Secondly, 2.) Israel must say loudly and unambiguously that the vast majority of noncombatant civilians who end up leaving northern Gaza or Gaza altogether will be allowed back into their homes in northern Gaza or Gaza overall (or what’s left what they left behind) shortly after the fighting stops, that there will be no mass expulsion of peaceful civilians, no ethnic cleansing, no mad pipe dreams that existed throughout Israeli history and in the mind of prominent rightist Israelis like former Prime Ministers Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon, among other prominent Israelis even still today, to expel Palestinians into the barren Sinai Peninsula in Egypt and create a “Palestine” there.  This is actually one major reason why Egypt is so reluctant to open the Rafah border crossing to outgoing civilians in Gaza: they fear new refugee camps that will become long-term fixtures, that, left unaddressed, festered instability, insurgencies, civil war, and even terrorism like so many camps set up for Palestinians after 1948 and 1967).

Frankly, given Israel’s track record, that this or subsequent Israeli governments can change their mind or break their word, and the composition of much of the current extremist Israeli government (especially before this unity government), Egypt and others would be justified in doubting whatever assurances Israel would give regarding allowing fleeing Gazans to return:  in what is still regarded as a deeply controversial and illegal move (though quite understandable from Israel’s perspective), Israel has allowed very, very few Palestinian refugees who fled or were expelled in 1947-1949 and in 1967 to return, either to Israel or to the Palestinian territory Israel occupied in 1967.

That cannot be the situation with the current possible waves of flight within or out of Gaza.  I personally would not bet on most Gazans that might move into Sinai ever returning unless the U.S. can pressure Israel into agreeing beforehand that they would be allowed to return soon after the fighting stops (in a live CNN interview with the always-stellar Christiane Amanpour I saw two days ago while writing this, Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid declined to say whether Israel’s leadership would provide a guarantee that displaced Palestinians would be allowed to return to their homes of if he would support such a move).  And it may be temping for Israel to turn all of northern Gaza into a bulldozed buffer zone, but this, too, would be a war crime and illegal under international law, and would be cramming all of Gaza’s 2.3 million people—already in a Gaza that is one of the most densely populated places on earth—into roughly half the territory they were living in before.  This would turn an already intolerable living situation into one that would be catastrophic.

Related to the last measure, this is a conflict mainly between Israel and Hamas; Israeli is in no position, morally or legally, to impose the problem of Palestinian refugees on Egypt and dump the responsibility for accounting and planning for their welfare onto Egypt is a not a party directly involved in the conflict as a primary party but is one that has every right to suspect Israel will be wanting to permanently dump Palestinians from Gaza into Sinai.  Israel is deciding to clear out half of the Gaza Strip and to invade a Gaza from which they are not currently allowing anyone to exit from the three sides of Gaza it controls.  As a major party to the conflict and as the party forcing civilians out of their homes, Israel is just as responsible as Hamas for their welfare as one of the two major belligerent parties, and Hamas’s moral and legal failures do not absolve Israeli form its moral and legal responsibilities, nor are those responsibilities Egypt’s.

Yet I am only hearing that “Egypt should open the Rafah crossing” without any mention that Israel could open one or both of its crossings and set up temporary shelter in its territory.  The simple fact of the matter is the land and infrastructure in Israel surrounding Gaza is far more hospitable, connected, and resourced than the desolate Sinai peninsula near Rafah, that Israel is far more capable of hosting humanitarian operations and a series of temporary refugee camps, and—especially now that Hamas is boxed into Gaza—southern Israel near Gaza is far more secure that the anarchic Sinai Peninsula, which has for many years has been filled with untamed Islamic terrorist insurgents from al-Qaeda and more recently a branch of the Islamic State (ISIS, remember them?).  ISIS even famously used a soda-can bomb to take out a Russian civilian airliner over Sinai in 2015, killing 224 people.  Thus far, the Egyptian government has not been able to quell these insurgent terrorists, despite multiple attempts over the years.

Considering this, throwing a large number of Palestinians into refugee camps into the mix in Sinai would seem to be setting up a disaster for the future in an already volatile area, could lead to a destabilization of Egypt, and, should ISIS gain a presence in the camps and launch, say, rocket attacks into Israel with any frequency or intensity, could also lead to Israel striking into Egyptian territory in response in a repetitive cycle the like had developed in between Israel and Gaza up until this point, a disaster for the region that should be avoided at all costs by taking Sinai off the table as far as discussions of where to settle Gazan Palestinians, either temporarily or otherwise (indeed, the current ISIS franchise in the Sinai has fired rockets into southern Israel multiple times before, though to shruggable effect).

Israelis, ever lacking strategic thinking, would likely consider the problem more or less “solved” if they could pawn the Gazan Palestinian “problem” off onto Egypt, and be much happier worrying, but worrying less, about Palestinians in Egypt than Palestinians closer by in Gaza and would feel less incentive to move the refugees back into Gaza, perhaps playing the semantic games that come so easy to Netanyahu without ever getting to a point of moving Palestinians back into Gaza.  Tellingly, in an interview yesterday with the always-excellent Nic Robertson for CNN, an Israeli man living near Gaza in Sderot, hit hard by Hamas, called for transferring the Gazan Palestinians “into other Arab countries,” a view Robertson noted was “typical of many” there.

Conversely, if Palestinians were in camps in set up in southern Israel on the Gazan border, Israel would want to get the Palestinians there back into Gaza as soon as possible and not a day later.  The dynamics are far more likely to pressure parties into a far better result with the Israel camp option than the Sinai camp option, keeping the conflict and the bulk of responsibility for a competent, swift resolution with Israel and not dragging Egypt into it, which cannot even handle its own situation in the Sinai.  Therefore, 3.) Israel should allow several camps on its own territory neighboring Gaza for many of the civilians who want to exit Gaza, especially women and children (obviously military-age men are going to be more difficult to process but not impossible to at least partly screen).

And Israel does not need to deal with this alone: apart from the UN and NGOs that will certainly be willing to aid (and feel much more secure operating in Israel than the Sinai), Israel can and very much should bring in Abbas’s and Fatah’s PA.  There is obviously great concern about what is the plan is for Gaza after Hamas is defeated, as Israel clearly has none and is not shy about admitting this repeatedly publicly and privately, even to the Biden Administration despite U.S. pushback for not having such a plan.  After Netanyahu has spent so many years deliberately weakening and undermining the only major alternative to Hamas, allowing PA officials into these temporary camps can help the PA build credibility among Gazans up from its current crisis-low levels, allowing the idea of the PA moving into Gaza to govern after Hamas is defeated to actually be built in the hearts and minds of Gazans, bolstered by international and aid organizations (for all its issues, can anyone think of a better choice than the PA to fill this role?).

If a post-Hamas future for Gaza begins with Israel, the PA, and international partners working to the benefit of the Palestinian civilians of Gaza, that is about as good of a new start one can hope for.  Without Hamas as a player on the scene, the only good path forward that can lead to justice, safety, and freedom for large numbers of Israelis and Palestinians is one that immediately begins building up a new Palestinian partner in Gaza for self-rule and to restart life there.  And for this, the PA is the only realistic option in the here and now.  Flatly speaking, there cannot be a military solution to what is fundamentally a political problem, and such Israeli-PA political cooperation (as opposed to just security cooperation) is long overdue.  Gaza after Hamas is a good chance for this (along with the West Bank if restrictions are eased and settlers reigned in) and there is no sense in putting it off, which would risk a collapse of the PA while it and Abbas are at their nadir along with a radicalization of its members.

Quite nobly and bravely, some Palestinian doctors, nurses, and medical staff are pledging to stay in northern Gaza—in the hospitals there—dozens even paying with their lives, so as not to abandon their patients, including newborn babies, who will die if they leave.

Especially in light of this, quite sadly and horrifically, the al-Ahli Baptist Hospital in Gaza City in northern Gaza was struck by an explosive projectile in northern Gaza just as I was finishing this last night, with estimates in the dead ranging from roughly 300 to 500.  I’m not a weapons expert, but on the one hand, this confirmed video of the strike does not resemble other videos of misfired Palestinian rocket attacks, as the IDF claims caused the blast and deaths, and seems closer to resembling a video of an Israeli airstrike especially given the size of the explosion; but on the other hand, factors that can push the conclusion in the other direction are still being digested, such as a lack of a large impact crater, video footage of a Palestinian rocket exploding high above the hospital just before the explosion in question and showing the explosion from a distance immediately after, and that if it was a rocket that misfired, it would have had more fuel so early in its journey, resulting in a larger explosion than normal.  The fog of war is still enveloping this situation even if it has become a Rorschach test, with people expressing certainty before having the facts and the incident understandably inflaming the region, making Biden’s visit and diplomatic push far more challenging.  At first, I believed with strong confidence it was an Israeli airstrike, but most of the evidence put forth of the publicly verifiable type favors Israel’s explanation. Still, there is yet doubt and dispute about what happened as of the publishing of this article and I am not sure definitive proof has been presented.

*(UPDATE: Throughout the day more analysis has come through. Despite Israeli’s track record of being caught lying in prominent cases like this, as excellently discussed by CNN’s Christiane Amanpour here, the forensic evidence, from subsequent video to crater/blast analysis, points very strongly, perhaps overwhelmingly, to the conclusion that this explosion resulted from a misfired Palestinian rocket and was an accident. As for the audio presented by Israel purported to be Hamas, it may or may not be authentic; in our present age, this audio could very well be an edited or fabricated cherry that Israel is adorning to the top of its cake of evidence to help win the public relations war it is losing, and some experts have called the audio out as fake; so that and some other aspects of the Israeli narrative are far from perfect. The audio may possibly be a distortion or a lie, but the lack of a large crater and the confirmed video evidence is not. On the other side of things, there is no hard evidence that has been presented to be able to draw the conclusion that this was an Israeli airstrike. I have discussed Israel lying in the past myself, and indeed, a whole article could be written about that [Israel in the past lied about airstrikes, including an incident last year in which it claimed categorically as fact that a misfired Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket had killed 5 children, it being later reveled there were no rockets launched or falling near the children and they were actually killed by an Israeli airstrike; conversely, as documented by Amnesty International, both Hamas and Islamic Jihad lied and blamed Israel for two rocket misfires in a 2014 incident that killed 13 civilians—11 of them children—claiming they were killed by Israeli attacks; thus, it is wise to not take everything any of these parties to this conflict say at face value without scrutiny] but even if the audio is possibly not credible, the overall circumstantial evidence is credible and very strongly does not indicate an Israeli airstrike and does indicate a misfired Palestinian rocket, whether from Islamic Jihad or Hamas, was responsible, and without any substantive counterevidence, we must go in the direction of the existing evidence unless further substantive evidence changes the picture substantially.)

*(SECOND UPDATE) Since my last update, there have been multiple other independent investigations, most of which admit they can not make a definitive conclusion in the absence of an on-the-ground investigation.  Among the new investigations are ones from the AP and CNN, both of which concluded that a misfired Palestinian rocket was the most likely explanation behind the tragic explosion at the hospital.  The CNN investigation also allowed for the possibility of an IDF artillery round, but found that possibility less likely based on the available evidence.  I personally messaged the serially reliable CNN military analyst, Col. Cedric Leighton USAF (Ret.), to weigh in, and he echoed the CNN investigation in also offering his view that the available evidence strongly favored a misfired Palestinian rocket based on available evidence versus other explanations but also could not rule out an Israeli artillery shell.  The Washington Post’s own investigation corroborated Israel’s and the U.S. assessment that a failed Palestinian rocket was the best explanation.  Following up on its earlier investigation that also found a misfired Palestinian rocket the most likely explanation but cast doubt on details of both the official Palestinian and official Israeli narrative, the UK Channel 4’s more recent investigation found further evidence to discredit what seems to be doctored or altered audio released by Israel that it claimed to be of Hamas operatives and that also cate doubt on Israel’s account of the trajectory of what caused the explosion (likely exposing Israeli hasbara, Israel’s unique brand of information warfare trying to make Israel’s narrative more convincing than the evidence alone would make it).  A New York Times investigation disputed that videos that have been widely cited by other investigations as showing strong evidence that a misfired Palestinian rocket was responsible actually showed what those other investigators concluded, including the aforementioned; rather, it corroborated some other interpretations that stated the videos do not show a misfired Palestinian rocket, casting the situation into further confusion and intensifying the fog of war.  The UK-based Forensic Architecture presented its analysis conducted with partner organizations that presented seemingly decent analysis discrediting parts of the official Israeli narrative and favoring the theory that an Israeli artillery round caused the blast, but the organization also seemingly presents the problem of anti-Israeli bias in its presentation: it refers to the IDF as “IOF,” which stands for “Israel Occupation Forces,” “Israel Offense Forces,” or “Israel Offensive Forces;” IOF is a pejorative term that some critical of the IDF and Israeli policy towards Palestinians have taken upon themselves to use to replace IDF; I will simply say that I do not find North Korea, formally known as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and often referred to by the ensuing acronym DPRK, to be either democratic of belonging to the people; to use another Asian example, China’s army is named the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), but it is neither liberating anything, nor run by the people; in both cases, I do not invent cute if accurate pejorative terms based on my own views, I use the official terminology because that is how the world works in the realm of journalism and research organization, otherwise we could start renaming everything and retitling anyone based on how we personally feel about them; those that do rename based on personal views more than suggest the presence of bias.  Al Jazeera put forward its own investigation, but it comes off fairly propagandistic: it presents information it claims disproves that a Palestinian rocket was responsible, but it is not convincing or conclusive at all and does not actually provide any evidence it was an Israeli airstrike, not even addressing the issue of crater size.  For its part, Hamas has also not produced any evidence the blast was from an Israeli airstrike or Israeli artillery round.  Greatly adding to the confusion around this incident, there have also been glaring errors made by media outlets throughout this process, with few owning up to their errors and both governments and international organizations not adjusted their narratives to newly revealed facts.  And one independent analyst who has not received proper clarification after reaching out to multiple major outlets may have even exposed that the figure of 500 killed that supposedly came from the Hamas health ministry—a figure later seen as widely non-credible, though numbers coming out of Gaza from all the other violence are generally seen by aid organizations and the United Nations as largely credible—may have no specific confirmation or evidence supporting that such a claim was actually made. After reviewing all of these, my own view—given the preponderance of independent investigations’ conclusions and the indications of “high confidence” U.S. intelligence—is that a failed Palestinian rocket is still the most likely explanation, but I feel less confident in this conclusion given several other investigations that have different interpretations of video analysis and that it seems very likely both Hamas and the IDF are lying about certain aspects of this in addition to no definitive investigation having yet been conducted on the ground; thus, I went from being pretty convinced it was an Israeli airstrike, to being even more convinced it was a failed Palestinian rocket, to still favoring the Palestinian rocket theory with less confidence and more doubt/questions to be answered.

Your not-so-humble author here has little to add to this incredibly inspiring self-sacrifice of the medical staff or the horror of the still-staffed hospital being struck by some weapon to devastating effect.  With the staff, the concept of the Hippocratic Oath taken to such an extreme level will inspire long after this conflict.  The bottom line for the purposes of my article is that, hypothetically speaking, if it was an Israeli strike, such a situation is generally quite avoidable, especially given how large hospital complexes tend to be.  Yet it is far less avoidable with the current Israeli approach.

Their bravery and sacrifice of the medical staff and the helplessness of their patients mean that, despite the crimes of Hamas, these doctors and their patients deserve all the care Israel can take to save them.  Even if this situation was not the result of an Israeli strike—and I am not stating that is the case—the current approaches leave such a possibility wide open, even likely, to still happen.  To this end, 4.) I call on the IDF and other Israeli authorities to reach out directly to the administrators of the hospitals and to try to coordinate delivery of aid to the hospitals and to coordinate if possible the IDF securing the hospitals as safe zones for civilians and patients unable to be safely moved as well as for the medical staff tending to them.  To the degree that Hamas avoids using these hospital as defensive positions or staging areas, there is great opportunity for clear, careful, open coordination avoiding needless loss of life or IDF attacks at these hospitals.

Israel also has to be careful about provocations and incitement against Palestinians by leaders, politicians, settlers, police, soldiers, and perhaps even more normal civilians after such traumatizing events.  This has been a huge problem in Israeli society in recent years, with one of the most complex, top-of-society-to-the-bottom examples being the horrible events in 2014 leading to Palestinian teen Muhammad Abu Khdeir’s abduction and murder by being beaten and burned to death by Israeli settlers—a “price tag” revenge for the kidnapping and murder by Palestinians of three Israeli teens, Naftali Fraenkel, Gilad Shaar, and Eyal Yifrach—so heartbreakingly portrayed in the excellent HBO and Keshet (an Israeli TV station) joint-miniseries titled Our Boys.  The show was so revealing of the toxic and dangerous effects of Netanyahu’s style of politics and the warped ideology of many of his supporters that he even outrageously called the joint-Israeli production “anti-Semitic.”  This incident back in 2014 was part of the runup to the worst Israel-Hamas violence before the current fighting.

Yet there are many examples going back years before and years beyond that prolific one.  These include multiple acts of violence, terrorism, and murder against Palestinians by Israeli settlers acting with sheer impunity in the West Bank, including ambushing and killing a father and a son just days ago who were attending a funeral of four other Palestinians recently murdered by settlers.  Israel’s security forces had already been massively escalating the situation in the West Bank all year with provocative raids and arrests before October 7, too.  Overall, the violence earlier this year hit levels not seen in East Jerusalem and the West Bank—both occupied illegally by Israel from 1967 on—since 2005 and is only exploding further now after Hamas’s October 7 pogrom and Israel’s devastating assault on Gaza: 61 Palestinians have been killed in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, 1,250 wounded since October 7, destined to get worse especially after the Gaza City hospital horror. 

There are nonviolent issues that drive violence that must also be considered: just the additions to, expansions, and continued presence of illegal-under-international-law Israeli settlements in the West Bank on land that that is supposed to be Palestinian are themselves provocations, with the U.S. condemning Israeli settlement expansion moves multiple times just last month and also earlier this year repeatedly, a year that has seen Netanyahu’s unprecedented right-wing extremist government dramatically accelerate settlement expansion.  The recent eviction of Palestinians from their home in East Jerusalem so they can be replaced with Jews and even some recent displacement of Palestinians in the West Bank—textbook ethnic cleansing on a slow, small progression—also adds to the poisonous atmosphere and the feeling held by Palestinians that they are under constant siege and assault.  

Statements from too many Israelis are also incitement, even lawmakers and senior members of the current government, including Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir—previously suspected and convicted, respectively, in Israeli legal cases of terrorism against Palestinians—Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and inciter-in-chief Netanyahu himself.  Such statements can even include denying the very identity of Palestinians as a distinct people and pushing for mass expulsion of Palestinians from their land or can surprisingly even recently come from Israel’s leftist figurehead president Isaac Herzog, and though he later walked back some of his worst remarks, he was clearly thinking what he said at the time. 

Additionally, the focus of Netanyahu’s multiple governments on normalization with Saudi Arabia and others while totally ignoring any political negotiations with the Palestinians, along with his recent predecessor Naftali Bennet pledging his government would literally do nothing to try to make political progress with Palestinians, were in themselves provocations because the clear subtext to Palestinians was that “You don’t matter and we don’t care about your political and nationalist aspirations at all,” an unsustainable illusion given false credence by a Trump-Kushner Abraham Accords that totally ignored Palestinian nationalist aspiration (I will be writing a whole article about this later).  And last but hardly least, the Israelis under Netanyahu’s new government have been provocative throughout the year at one of the holiest sites of Islam, the Al-Aqsa Mosque in East Jerusalem’s Old City, including in the days just before the Hamas pogrom on October 7.

Israel needs to put its best foot forward during its Gaza operation in regards to these incitements and provocations, which it is already failing to do, or risk blowback that will see more Israelis and Palestinians get killed and complicate what are already a complicated Gaza offensive and simmering, even now exploding, regional dynamics.

The key measures that must be taken here are that 5.) Israeli leaders must police and reign in officials engaging in hate-speech, the language of anti-Palestinian incitement, or ordering provocative security force deployments or actions at Al-Aqsa while prevent any settlement expansion in the West Bank or ethnic cleansing in East Jerusalem during this fighting in Gaza.  And they must not only prevent terrorist settler violence against Palestinians but must also prosecute any settlers guilty of such terrorism against Palestinians.

These first five measures absolutely will help to stem criticisms of “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” currently being leveled against Israel’s Gaza campaign, and they are prolific and not without meriting concern given some of the statements coming from Israeli quarters, discussed above (indeed, if the Palestinians leaving northern Gaza are not allowed to ever return, that would be the legal definitions of those accusations, and the damage to Israel for playing into the these legitimate criticisms would be considerable on the world stage).  Blunting such criticism with substantive action would not only be effective public relations and buttress Israel’s campaign against Hamas, it will actually save many innocent lives.

Finally, while there is rightly and emphatically condemnation of Hamas’s abduction of children among the hostages, there is an ugly truth that receives far too little attention: according to Save the Children (full in-depth report here), each year, Israel detains without civilian due process but through military authorities between roughly 500-1000 Palestinian children, most of whom are physically abused in custody, a large portion of whom are denied timely legal assistance access (often interrogated before any assistance), and many of whom are “denied a meaningful opportunity to defend themselves against allegations.”  Human Rights Watch also shows Israeli military authorities handling and detaining the children are regularly abusive and that they are often denied anything resembling an acceptable due process, with the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem showing more detailed figures and that Israeli authorities have not been transparent or forthcoming when it comes to inquiries about detained children. 

From various statements coming from official Israeli spokespeople, the rescue or exchange of the hostages taken by Hamas into Gaza seem to be taking a backseat to the desires of the Israeli government first and foremost to destroy Hamas, and, indeed, those two goals are largely incompatible; thus, it must be said this does not augur terribly well for the survival of the many Hamas hostages.  And while there is a current proposal that was just floated by Hamas offering to release all civilian hostages if Israel ceases airstrikes and would release all military hostages if Israel releases all Palestinian prisoners, this is ambitious and complicated and probably unlikely to be accepted.  Perhaps Israel offering to exchange the most vulnerable and least culpable prisoners in its custody—the children discussed above—in exchange for some or all the hostages in Gaza would put Hamas even more so on the defensive in the international arena for not acting on a legitimate, balanced, serious offer to exchange civilian life for civilian life, to free children and not all prisoners, including clear terrorists, from prison, so my last proposal is that 6.) Israel should offer to release all the children in its custody in exchange for at least the civilians held by Hamas.  It might not work but it doesn’t hurt as far as posturing and could put pressure on Hamas while showing that Israel is willing to explore ways to save hostages beyond military methods.  This would also be appreciated by many members of the Israeli public, who seem anecdotally in many, many interviews and from looking at social media posts of people I don’t know and people I know personally to at least seem to want Israel to prioritize getting the hostages free.

Conclusion: 6 High-Reward, Low-to-Moderate Risk Steps to Benefit Israelis and Palestinians Alike

As America’s Israel-whisperer, New York Times columnist Tom Friedman, noted repeatedly and emphatically, if Israel does not take measures like the ones I am suggesting into consideration and just hurtles itself into Gaza with the sole consideration of destroying Hamas rapidly, then it will be playing into the dreams and interests of Iran, Hezbollah, and all who wish Israel ill in the Middle East and beyond.  Getting drawn into a bloodbath in Gaza in which very doable, practical, and eminently possible measures to minimize civilian casualties and keep civilians fed, hydrated, and overflowing hospitals powered up are simply not taken or only minimally implemented is exactly what Iran, Hezbollah, and all of Israel’s enemies want to see or believe Israeli will do.  Like Friedman writes, Israel should be asking itself, “What do my worst enemies want me to do — and how can I do just the opposite?”  How can Israel prove the cynics and haters wrong?  Israel can hope to influence, but cannot control, the actions of other parties, but it can control its own.

The below picture is a of pair of twins who were just born in Gaza after their mother fled Israeli bombardment.  The world they grow up in—if they even survive—will be largely defined by what Israel and other states and factions decide and do in the coming days, weeks, and months.  If the measures I have suggested are adopted, there is a good chance worthy of a big bet that world will be less awful than if they are ignored, that the dynamics driving decades of conflict will be lessoned significantly by Israel in reducing its own contributions to them regardless of what its enemies do or do not do.  By seriously adopting these six measures, Israeli will serve its own interests and see the obstacles to peace weakened, the rays of hope largened and brightened, with a lot more people actually alive to see the improvement over time, not only many Palestinians, but also plenty of Israelis.

See all of Brian’s work on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict here.

© 2023 Brian E. Frydenborg all rights reserved, permission required for republication, attributed quotations welcome

Also see Brian’s eBook, A Song of Gas and Politics: How Ukraine Is at the Center of Trump-Russia, or, Ukrainegate: A “New” Phase in the Trump-Russia Saga Made from Recycled Materials, available for Amazon Kindle and Barnes & Noble Nook (preview here).

If you appreciate Brian’s unique content, you can support him and his work by donating here; because of YOU, Real Context News surpassed one million content views on January 1, 2023. Real Context News produces commissioned content for clients upon request at its discretion.

Feel free to share and repost this article on LinkedIn, Facebook, Threads, and Twitter. If you think your site or another would be a good place for this or would like to have Brian generate content for you, your site, or your organization, please do not hesitate to reach out to him!

By Brian E. Frydenborg (Twitter @bfry1981, LinkedIn, Facebook, Substack with exclusive informal content, my Linktree with all my public links/profiles) October 11, 2023 (slightly updated figures late afternoon)

(Arabic الترجمة العربية / Hebrew תרגום לעברית) The first article in a series of special reports about the 2023 Israel-Hamas-Middle East Crisis.

See related July 28, 2014 article The Israel-Hamas Gaza High-Stakes Poker Game of Death, October 26, 2015 article Blame Bibi Netanyahu for the Violence First, Then Blame Both the Israeli and Palestinian People; because of YOU, Real Context News surpassed one million content views on January 1, 2023, but I still need your help, please keep sharing my work and consider also donating! Real Context News produces commissioned content for clients upon request at its discretion. Also, Brian is running for U.S. Senate for Maryland and you can learn about his campaign here.

SILVER SPRING—It is utterly inevitable: in conflict and war, comparisons are made to other conflicts.  They do not always even have to be from the real world: as I have discussed, Ukrainians regularly compare Russia to Mordor and Russian forces to orcs and have also seen themselves as the Rebel Alliance from Star Wars taking on a Russia embodying the Galactic Empire (Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelensky has even partnered with Mark Hamill—Luke Skywalker himself—to help bolster Ukraine’s drone fleet and war effort).  Some pretty bad comparisons are being made about the current fighting in Israel and Palestine with the Russia-Ukraine war; as I have noted in even the right-leaning Israeli newspaper The Jerusalem Post, this is kind of ridiculous, because while Ukraine and Russia is virtually a one-sided, good-versus-evil issue, the behavior and context of Israel and the Palestinians (Hamas being one of two major Palestinian political factions and not particularly popular with or representative of Palestinians) is much more complicated, and I am not alone in making this point.

The 9/11 al-Qaeda attacks against the United States analogy being made by many, many people is both good and way off.

On the scale and psychological shock for both Israelis and Americans, the analogy holds: the Hamas attack is actually far worse proportionately, given Israel’s far smaller population and the still-increasing death toll (over 1,200 for Israelis conflicting reports of around 2,700 to 3,000 wounded as I am writing this; from a U.S. population in 2001 of about 285 million, 9/11 killed 2,977 people; Israel’s population is about 9.8 million today, with 73% being Jewish; if we lost the same portion of people as Israel has back in 2001, that would have been nearly 35,00 Americans killed and close to some 78,500-87,250 wounded.  For historical comparison, the bloodiest day in American history is the battle of Antietam, during the U.S. Civil War on September 17, 1862, in which there were nearly 20,946 killed and wounded—only 3,654 of those killed—with both combatant sides being American; Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, saw 3,581 total U.S. killed and wounded, with 2,403 of those killed).

Palestinians killed in Gaza are over 1,100 and 5,300 wounded, while Israeli forces have counted roughly 1,500 attacking Hamas terrorists and fighters killed inside Israel thus far.  Between Israel and Palestine, there are roughly an equal number of Palestinians/Arabs and Jews, though about of fifth of Israel’s citizens are Palestinians or Arabs, depending on how they identify (some with mixed feelings/loyalties and a thorny identity issue, as I have discussed recently), so there is trauma—deep, widespread trauma—being experienced now by everyone from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.

But while terrorist flying large planes into major hubs and landmarks in America was novel, the idea of Hamas and other fighters or terrorists in Gaza breaking through the border barriers to strike out at Israeli forces and communities, including hunting down civilians on the streets and in their homes to target them for murder and kidnapping, is an eventuality and fear that has consumed the Israeli mindset for years.  What was novel was how “successful,” organized, large, and tactically proficient Hamas was in its effort, but that the effort would be undertaken was a given.  So the idea that this was not long-anticipated is false.  Conversely, the U.S. had key intelligence 9/11 on specific people and activities directly related to the 9/11 attacks passed up the chain in the months before 9/11, but the incompetence of the Bush Administration saw that it was not properly internalized and addressed.  Therefore, the comparison of both being major “intelligence failures” is inaccurate; this is far more applicable to Israel today.

Another dissimilarity: Israel’s conflict did not start on October 7, nor was it a cold or frozen conflict with just a few isolated flashpoints spread out over time, as was the case with the U.S. and al-Qaeda in the years before 9/11.  While the U.S. enraged many millions of Muslims and Arabs with controversial policies over decades, the U.S. was not engaged in any serious conflict directly with Al-Qaeda in the weeks and months prior to 9/11 and 9/11 was not carried out by people living in an enclave on the U.S. border with Mexico or Canada that the U.S. had been fighting and skirmishing on and off for years and in the days, weeks, and months before 9/11.  The opposite is true with Israel and the Palestinians, including Hamas in Gaza.  Especially since Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s extremist right-wing government came to power in late December 2022, there has been a cycle of escalating violence, incitement, and deliberately provocative acts back and forth between the Israeli government and Israeli Jewish settlers on one end, and Palestinian terrorist groups (namely Hamas and Islamic Jihad) and small groups of Palestinians engaging in their own acts of resistance and/or violence of their own accord on the other.  This, even before Hamas’s stunningly “successful” (but entirely predictable in the attempt) attack and going back even before the ascent of Israel’s latest government for years, there has been a back-and-forth cycle of violence, dehumanization, and recrimination, one that erupted in 2023, leading to an explosion of violence that saw this year become most violent in the West Bank and East Jerusalem since 2005.  And then, Hamas dramatically and historically escalated things even further just a few fays ago.

Relatively speaking, then, 9/11 could be said to be unprovoked in a recent-time sense, but it is hard to claim that this Hamas attack was unprovoked and not directly part of a hot conflict already underway in the sense that Israelis and Palestinians were engaged in increasing violence all throughout 2023 in East Jerusalem and the West Bank mostly, but also some violence in Gaza, too.  To be clear, Israel and even some of its most extremist Jewish civilians engaging in actions that are deeply provocative to Palestinians month after month (and indeed, year after year, not that Palestinians do not do the same, they often do too) does not mean that, therefore, whatever reaction that comes from the Palestinians, including Hamas, is justified.  In other words, provoked does not necessarily mean justified, and, indeed, clearly Hamas’s overall attack is not “brave” “resistance” against an enemy military force but a slaughter of non-combatants (of over 1,200 Israelis killed by Hamas, only 189 thus far are IDF, 45 are Israeli police, the rest and overwhelming majority being civilians, and that does not even deal with the at least 150 hostages taken by Hamas).  Indeed, Hamas has pivoted to becoming more like ISIS than the Hamas of even a few years ago as it is now responsible for the worst single day of lethal violence targeting Jewish civilians since the Nazi-led Holocaust during World War II.  Make no mistake, what Hamas perpetrated against the civilians of southern Israel near the Gaza Strip is a terroristic genocidal act of mass-murder and ethnic cleansing, an anti-Semitic pogrom that harkens back to a much darker era of humanity: in just one kibbutz of about 1,000 people called Be’eri, at least over 100 were killed—at least 10% of the population.

Another deep issue I will mention simply for the reader to consider without discussing: the U.S. had no solid, detailed exit strategy for its military interventions in which it engaged after 9/11 and the results were mostly counterproductive and with a massive human cost and the repercussions still very much being felt.  Given Israel’s track record in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon of not really having a political strategy but only tactical responses, it is deeply unlikely that Israel has any serious, mature, or realistic plan for what to do in Gaza once this war “ends,” so, quite likely, there is another for the similarities column. 

In the end, considering 9/11 is useful both in its similarities with and in its differences from the insane, tragic death-spiral currently unfolding Israel, Gaza, and beyond in trying to understand said death-spiral.

See all of Brian’s work on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict here.

© 2023 Brian E. Frydenborg all rights reserved, permission required for republication, attributed quotations welcome

Also see Brian’s eBook, A Song of Gas and Politics: How Ukraine Is at the Center of Trump-Russia, or, Ukrainegate: A “New” Phase in the Trump-Russia Saga Made from Recycled Materials, available for Amazon Kindle and Barnes & Noble Nook (preview here).

If you appreciate Brian’s unique content, you can support him and his work by donating here; because of YOU, Real Context News surpassed one million content views on January 1, 2023. Real Context News produces commissioned content for clients upon request at its discretion.

Feel free to share and repost this article on LinkedIn, Facebook, Threads, and Twitter. If you think your site or another would be a good place for this or would like to have Brian generate content for you, your site, or your organization, please do not hesitate to reach out to him!

By Brian E. Frydenborg (Twitter @bfry1981, LinkedIn, Facebook, Substack with exclusive informal content, Threads @bfchugginalong) September 20, 2023; see related July 28, 2014 article The Israel-Hamas Gaza High-Stakes Poker Game of Death, October 26, 2015 article Blame Bibi Netanyahu for the Violence First, Then Blame Both the Israeli and Palestinian People, and February 17, 2017 article: Trump, the Global Democratic Fascist Movement, Putin’s War on the West, and a Choice for Liberals: Welcome to the Era of Rising Democratic Fascism Part II; because of YOU, Real Context News surpassed one million content views on January 1, 2023, but I still need your help, please keep sharing my work and consider also donating! Real Context News produces commissioned content for clients upon request at its discretion. Also, Brian is running for U.S. Senate for Maryland and you can learn about his campaign here.

SILVER SPRING—Tamir Pardo, a former chief of Israel’s famed foreign intelligence agency called the Mossad, recently flat-out explicitly labeled the Israel governance of the West Bank as apartheid.  Pardo’s use of the term apartheid goes significantly further than other former senior Israeli officials, who have warned of the possibility of Israel becoming apartheid but have not used the term so unequivocally to refer to anything in the here-and-now. 

Israel’s last prime minister to govern Israel from the left (over two decades ago), the Labor Party’s decorated general Ehud Barak, has been warning for over a decade that Israel faces a devolution into apartheid. Israel’s last centrist prime minister, Ehud Olmert of the now defunct Kadima Party, has echoed him.  But the latest Israeli titan to engage in these warnings is hardly a leader of some left-wing human rights-group and did not serve a leftist or centrist government.  Indeed, Pardo is no lefty: he was appointed by the right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself to run Mossad from 2011-2016.  Now, the unlikely Pardo is raising the alarm that some of Netanyahu’s current allies in power are “a lot worse” than even the U.S. Ku Klux Klan.

In Israel’s stunning victory in the 1967 Six-Day War, it ended up occupying the then-Jordanian-occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, the Egypt-occupied Gaza Strip, Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, and Syria’s Golan Heights; while Sinai has been returned since U.S. President Jimmy Carter brokered the Egypt-Israeli 1979 peace treaty, Israel illegally occupies East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights today and partially occupies and exercises most of the de facto sovereignty over Gaza still today.  While Egypt never formally tried to annex Gaza during its occupation of it from 1948-1967, its occupation was still not officially endorsed by the United Nations or most nations as a proper de jure authorized occupation.  Similarly, nearly every country in the world rejected as illegal Jordan’s 1950 annexation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

By the same principles applied to Egypt and Jordan that legally rejected any possibility of those countries unilaterally deciding to indefinitely take over and rule these territories in question that they occupied before they were driven out and defeated by Israel in 1967, today nearly the entire world rejects as illegal Israel’s (partial) annexation and decades-long de facto rule of the territories it still retains and/or controls from its occupations begun in 1967.

And this very much includes the West Bank.

Denying the Reality of or Maintaining Apartheid Occupation in the West Bank Does Not “Help” Israel

Those who claim to be “pro-Israel” or to support it who keep either turning a blind eye to, or outright campaigning for, Israeli colonial imperialism in Palestinian territory are neither “pro-Israel” nor true supporters of Israel but are akin to a friend buying methamphetamine for a meth-addict friend.  The Palestinian territory comprising the West Bank has been recognized by the overwhelming majority of nations since international recognition of Israel and Israel’s birth as a state in 1948 as well as after the territory’s occupation by Israel in 1967 as very much legally not Israel, and Palestinians have by far been the majority population for many centuries in the West Bank and still are in spite of illegal colonial demographic engineering on the part of Israel.  Despite ancient ancestral Jewish ties to the West Bank, as with ancient ancestral ties of many peoples around the world, such ties are not a legal basis for modern unilateral annexation or recolonization, nor the subjugation of current inhabitants; such revanchist claims could result in maps being rearranged all over the world and bloody wars, just as during World War II and the current case with Russia’s colonialist imperialist ambitions today in Ukraine. 

The powerful forces of hubris, power, revanchist expansionism, and cruelty of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank are noted in the words of even prominent now-more-conservative Jewish-Israeli historian Benny Morris:

Israeli thinking [after 1967] was to some degree governed by the notion that the Arabs of the territories, starved of land and resources (primarily water), and denied the possibility of industrial development, would gradually drift away.  Though never clearly enunciated, this was the government’s aim—especially after 1977.  And, indeed, over the decades, a steady trickle of West Bank and Gaza Arabs left their homes to find an easier life abroad…

There was a clear lesson for the inhabitants of the territories and the Palestinian diaspora in these events: Israel intended to stay in the West Bank, and its rule would not be overthrown or ended through civil disobedience and civil resistance, which were easily crushed. The only real option was armed struggle.

(Righteous Victims, 339, 341)

These powerful forces are proving addictive drugs to the very worst of Israeli society, elements who are not just the dregs but have become more mainstream and are firmly in the driver’s seat under Netanyahu’s unprecedented extremist right-wing government.  Those who think the inner turmoil and Israel’s domestic lurch towards extremism are wholly or even mostly separate from Israel’s more-than-a-half-century illegal military occupation and rule of Palestinians and Palestinian land (which I have discussed in detail before) are deluding themselves and their audience: the corrosion of the occupation is intimately intertwined with the corrosion of Israeli society and politics, the corruption of one becoming the corruption of the other.  As Morris writes:

Israelis liked to believe, and tell the world, that they were running an “enlightened” or “benign” occupation, qualitatively different from other military occupations the world had seen.  The truth was radically different. Like all occupations, Israel’s was founded on brute force, repression and fear, collaboration and treachery, beatings and torture chambers, and daily intimidation, humiliation, and manipulation…

Military administration, uncurbed by the civil rights considerations that applied in Israel, possessed ample measures to suppress dissidence and protest.  These included curfews; house arrest, with resulting loss of wages; judicial proceedings, ending in prison terms or fines—the work of the military courts in the territories, and the Supreme Court which backed them, will surely go down as a dark age in the annals of Israel’s judicial system—or expulsions; administrative detentions, or imprisonment without trial, for renewable six-month terms; and commercial and school shutdowns, usually in response to shopkeepers’ strikes or disturbances by students.  The Israelis could withhold or, alternatively, grant to collaborators, travel permits, commercial or building licenses, family reunion approvals, and marketing and work permits.  Such measures were often used selectively and, occasionally, collectively.  Sometimes whole towns were denied the right to receive visitors from the Arab states, such as Ramallah in the summer of 1968.

…[R]esistance met with quick and brutal repression.  Midnight sweeps and arrests; beatings, sensory deprivation measures, and simple, old – style torture to extract information and confessions; a system of military courts which bore no resemblance to the administration of justice in Western democracies (or, for that matter, in Israel proper); the demolition (or sealing) of suspects’ houses; long periods of administrative detention; and deportations—all were systematically employed.  Most of the measures had been introduced by the British during their suppression of the Arab rebellion of 1936–39 and were still on the statute books in the form of “emergency regulations.”

(341-342) [See my graduate school paper on the British Mandate of Palestine]

Such practices hardly ended then and continue today, as other well-documented sources cited below will amply confirm.

In so casually and harshly denying democracy, freedom, and human rights to the majority of a whole section of people de facto under their control for so long and lying to themselves about these very plain facts and the nature of their “benign” occupation, Israelis over time festered an inevitability that the quality of democracy, freedom, and human rights within their Israel—under international law established firmly behind 1967 lines and properly recognized as the Israeli state by nearly every other nation—would be dragged down and perhaps mortally threatened by the corrosive effects of the actions they have been undertaking for half-a-century so close by in the West Bank with generations of their conscripted citizen-army.  And thus, after more than five-and-a-half decades of militarized apartheid occupation, it is no wonder that the domestic situation within Israel is now unraveling once the people most zealously committed to these very policies in the West Bank came to be running Israel’s domestic affairs as key members of the most extreme right-wing government in Israel’s history after Israel’s most recent national elections.

A young Jewish Israeli leftist mother I know from my travels in Israel whom I checked in with just recently wrote to me: “My grandparents fled Germany and now I’m trying to get a German passport.  But now the Nazis are in Israel.  I mean, there are some in Germany, but not as many.”  I wouldn’t use the term “Nazi” myself, but fascist, as there is certainly now more than a whiff of fascism in the air there, just like in the U.S. and too many other places, but it is surprisingly common in Israeli political discourse for “Nazi” to be applied as a pejorative.

Palestinian Terrorism Is Not a Justification for What Is Over a Half-Century of Obvious Apartheid

I am sure some Israelis, some American Jews, and some others—including people I know—will not be pleased, will even be upset, at use of the term apartheid here.  To those people, I would state simply the fact that the millions of Palestinians living in Palestine’s West Bank will not be pleased, and are very upset, to a much higher degree, that their actually living under an apartheid legal, political, and social system—the very definition of separate and unequal that would also fit the post-Reconstruction, Jim Crow U.S. South for close to a century until the implementation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965—constitutes far, far greater actual injury than any perceived injury apologists for Israel feel at the use of the word apartheid to describe Israeli de facto rule of the West Bank. 

The U.S. analogy is particularly useful, because while there are important historical differences—we are talking about freed slaves after the Civil War, their descendants, Hispanic-Americans and other minorities the U.S. who were U.S. citizens but were denied equal rights in officially segregated areas until 1965 in one instance, and the Palestinian people living in the West Bank (and for a very long time and still in many ways in Gaza) who came under military occupation in 1967 and their descendants living there up through today on the other—the legal de facto similarities are undeniable and put them in much the same de facto category (in the West Bank city of Khalil/Hebron, I have seen whole sections of their own city that Palestinians are banned from entering, metal detectors for Palestinians entering the city’s most historic mosque but not for Jewish settlers who converted part of the mosque into a synagogue, and a street where one side is for Jews, the other for Palestinians, where I saw Palestinians—including children—inspected and harassed by Israeli soldiers while just going about their own business).  Israel’s apologists play a semantic and legalistic game that is wholly unconvincing.  Call it West Bank Jim Crow for all I care, but it’s the same kind of system in that two sets of people are defined on the basis of their ethnicity and ancestry as falling into two unequal legal sets of rights, rules, and punishments, the harsher one forced by one set of people upon the other set against their will  and without their consent, giving the people forcing the system on the unwilling far more rights than the unwilling and control over those unwilling, who are subject to brutal, arbitrary, and unfair violence enforcement of this inequality with the full might of security forces and paramilitary wings of the enforcing side’s civilian population, be they extremist Jewish Israeli settlers or the Ku Klux Klan, both of which existed to extragovernmentally enforce supremacist (Jewish or white) rule on the respective unwilling minorities the dominated through violence, intimidation, and terrorism.  These civilian extremists engaging in terrorist violence against the those unwilling to endure separate and unequal apartheid in both countries often have strong supporters and friends in senior levels of the government, as was the case throughout the Jim Crow era in the U.S. and has been the case with the rise and recent rapid expansion of the settler movement in Israel (which for decades has been colonizing illegally occupied Palestinian Arab land with illegal Israeli Jewish settlements and expanding existing ones).  Official support for these settler colonists and the violence some of them perpetuate is most egregiously present in the current Netanyahu-led coalition government filled with right-wing extremists.  Just this year and even in recent months, Israeli’s own security forces’ leaders—including the heads of Shin Bet, the military, and the police—have called recent settler attacks against Palestinians terrorism, as has the U.S. Department of State, yet extremist senior officials in Israel’s government—including National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich—attacked those making this criticism and/or even praised this settler violence against Palestinians.  Ben-Gvir and Smotrich have themselves been linked in the past to supporting or planning terrorism against Arabs, so this is no surprise.

I can already hear apologists for Israel warming up.  “BUT THE PALESTINIANS”—just stop.  None of the problems with decades of illegal apartheid rule through military occupation—not temporary occupation—are fundamentally about Palestinians’ terrorism and incitement of extremism, which are obviously major problems and threats and legitimate concerns for the Israeli government, which has the right to respond to and act to prevent such violence, up to and including through the use of force, but those legitimate concerns does not give Israel the right to impose apartheid, de facto or de jure, on millions of people for over half a century.  And even the Israel Defense Forces (IDF)—Israel’s military—has cited Israeli settler violence against Palestinians as a cause of Palestinian violence against Israelis, just as Morris has made it clear that the occupation and displacement of Palestinians are themselves a breeding ground for violent Palestinian resistance:

The [1967] war and its aftermath of occupation, repression, and expansionism swiftly reignited the tinder of Palestinian nationalism, propelling thousands of young men, especially from among the dispossessed and hopeless of the refugee camps in East Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon, into the burgeoning resistance organizations. At the same time, much as the Zionist enterprise had helped trigger early Palestinian nationalism, so the daily contact and friction with Israel and the Israeli authorities inside the territories now reawakened it.

(343)

Rather, these problems with Israel’s system of rule in the West Bank are about Israeli colonial expansionism the status of a people they have occupied and controlled for over fifty-six years now living under rule that is apartheid/Jim Crow—de jure and de facto before the now-failed and moribund Oslo Accords process that began in 1993 and was supposed to jumpstart a path to peace and a Palestinian state (and was sabotaged by Netanyahu, Hamas, and settlers, among others) and still very much de facto since—who are denied anything anywhere near-approximating the legal rights of the citizens backed by and backing the occupying power, which is imposing far inferior legal, political, social, and economic status on these occupied Palestinians without any consent or political representation in the system that is imposing it upon them.  Furthermore, this fifty-six-year occupation is no temporary measure: it has been fifteen years since any serious attempt at negotiations aimed at giving the Palestinians there their own state and sovereignty and since any indication the Israeli government is even willing to consider a change in the legal and political status of the millions of Palestinians living in the West Bank.  Between then and now, even after stretches of years of relatively little violence coming from Palestinians in the West Bank, there were still no responses from Israel indicating any serious rewards were being considered for this nonviolence other than more illegal Israeli settlements either expanding or being set up anew on Palestinian land in the West Bank.  In other words, nonviolence was met with more Israeli expansion at Palestinians’ expense, ipso facto discouraging nonviolence and encouraging violence.  This means that both Palestinian violence and Israeli violence is occurring in situation in which the de facto supreme end authority over the entire Palestinian West Bank is one of apartheid Israeli control giving Jews access to the benefits of Israeli civil law and Palestinian the harshness and arbitrariness of Israeli military rule whenever and wherever in the West Bank Israel chooses to implement it, regardless of any lines on a map left over from a broken Oslo system.

Specifically, this means that the violence occurring from the Palestinian side occurs in an atmosphere of Israelis in leadership making several things clear:

• That they will not hold Israeli settlers anywhere near accountable (if at all) for violence and terrorism as they do Palestinians
• That they have no plans to give up their rule or control of any of the West Bank, but, rather, to deepen and expand their presence and freedom of control and action there
• That they have no plans to change the legal or political status of the West Bank or Palestinians there (or are even considering either of these), plan to keep subjugating Palestinians under a deeply inferior status as part of its apartheid system with no attempt to find a way to alter those arrangements, and will defend those excusing this
• That to them the West Bank is simply part of Israel, period (not anything new from top Israeli officials)

The West Bank on official Israeli administrative and political maps is simply “Judea” and “Samaria,” just another two parts of Israel, with no border shown that would indicated that the West Bank is anything apart from the Israeli state.  To some this may seem trivial or moot, but it is not.  I have spoken myself with young Israelis that are not even familiar with the term “West Bank”—only “Judea” and “Samaria”—or even know that the territory is not legally Israel’s, that it is illegally occupying that land, and that virtually the entire rest of the world does not accept it as Israel.  When heart-of-Israeli-leftism Tel Aviv-Jaffa Municipality and its mayor defied the Israeli Education Ministry’s rules when it became the one school district in Israel to put up maps showing a border between Israel and the West Bank (the Green Line, from the 1949 Armistice ending the first Arab-Israeli war and regarded as Israel’s proper border) last August, this angered many Israelis and officials, with the Education Ministry ordering the roughly 2,000 revised maps in the district to be removed and replaced with maps not showing the border the rest of the world sees on virtually every other map (after checking with a local source, the maps showing the border are apparently still up in Tel Aviv-Jaffa classrooms).  Israel even just objected to the United Nations naming ancient ruins in the Palestinian city of Jericho as a World Heritage site explicitly as being located in Palestine (Palestine since late 2012 is a recognized “State” at the UN, just one with “non-member observer” status along with the Vatican’s Holy See) and objected very much because of that, just the latest that sign Israel intends to indefinitely illegally control all occupied Palestinian land forming all of the West Bank and expects the UN to ignore international law to recognize illegally occupied Palestinian lands as “Judea and Samaria,” as Israel’s and only Israel’s, as Israeli’s to do whatever they see fit with, which the UN will not.  The truth is that any hint at the lack of de jure sovereignty of Israel over the West Bank is met with swift and loud action from various corners of Israeli society and the government.

What this translates into collectively is a denial and blocking of any Palestinian nationalist aspirations in favor of perpetual apartheid.

In short, violence from some Palestinians some of the time cannot reasonably be a justification for fifty-six years of millions of Palestinians living in the legal equivalent of apartheid or Jim Cow, despite the absurd rationale that this should somehow be the case, a rationale Israelis would never accept were the situation reversed—Jewish history, from even before the Roman occupation (I have been to Masada myself and seen firsthand where some ancient Jews went to the most extreme lengths to fight for their freedom) to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, shows Jews are quite capable of violent resistance against abusive occupation—and therefore have no right to impose on anyone else.

Apartheid in the West Bank, but Not Inside Israel

To be clear, it’s no paradise being an Arab citizen within the proper borders recognized under international law and by almost every nation on earth as the territory of the Israeli state (many of them, increasingly by some—but not all—accounts, considering themselves Palestinians, though some not, the last part a dirty secret for many Palestinians that many adamantly refuse to admit).  These Palestinian citizens of Israel, Arab-Israelis, Israeli-Arabs, or Palestinian-Israelis (depending on their personal preference, not on what others would impose on them) suffer discrimination and racism akin to what, sadly, most minorities face in most countries in the world: serious discrimination, under-resourcing, unequal access to or deprivation of key resources, lack of integration, disparities, and even violence, but not apartheid.  That is not to deny the plight of Arab citizens of Israel, it is serious, just as is the case of African-Americans in the U.S. even today, Kurds in Turkey, Muslims in India, indigenous people in Mexico and Brazil, non-ethnic-Russians in Russia, black Africans in Sudan and Tunisia, or Patani Malays in Thailand, just to name a handful of cases.  All are filled with unique histories, but the discrimination is generally some degree of different treatment by the government and society on top of some sort of historical disenfranchisement.  But to label Israel as a state inside its own legitimate, international recognized borders as apartheid dilutes the meaning of that powerful word to the point of making it almost meaningless, such that all those countries I just mentioned would have to also be labeled apartheid, as would nearly every country I the world.  I have not found any country where there is perfect harmony and equality among the majority and minorities, or among the ruling factions and other factions not ruling, and anyone claiming their country does meet the ideal of equality in practices should be viewed with extreme caution as far as taking their understandings of the world seriously.

Apologists come in all forms, but apartheid does not: there are very few systems in recent decades that match with the extreme level of institutionalized, official discrimination that characterized apartheid in South Africa—where the term “apartheid” comes from—until the rise of Mandela (though that system’s legacy still is doing tremendous damage in South Africa today), and one of the only others out there is Israeli rule of the West Bank (I have not taken a deep-dive into this, and maybe I will, but some of the only other examples that come to mind are Myanmar/Burma against its Rohingya population, gender apartheid in Afghanistan, and perhaps approaching apartheid in India’s rule of Kashmir).  Racism is a serious and growing problem all over the world right now, but throwing around “apartheid” as a term casually does no one any favors.  It does not help that the 1973 United Apartheid Convention includes an overly-broad definition that would apply to many countries on the planet, similar to my earlier discussion.  As I have argued that “terrorism” as a word should not simply apply to just any violence or threats with which we do not agree, but specific and extreme forms, so, too, should “apartheid” not be applied to any form of racism or discrimination we do not like, but should only apply to specific and extreme forms.

In an atmosphere of rising bigotry, -isms and -ists worldwide—not least of all in anti-Semitism—there are those who just want to see an end to Israel as a state and any sort of Jewish power or Jewish rule.  These people are not the only one who seek to dismantle the Israeli Jewish-run state, as many Palestinians, understandably, want to see a single democratic State of Palestine run by a majority of Palestinians after refugees would hypothetically return, making Jews a minority in what would formerly have been the State of Israel but would become a democratic Palestine, a “one-state solution,” as opposed to a “two-state solution” of an Israel and a separate Palestine.  But this is an idealist but unrealistic dream that is, practically speaking, simply not going to happen anytime in the even pretty distant future beyond our lifetimes for many reasons I will not get into here.  And in their bias and anger (plenty of that on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides, as I have noted), they seek to undermine Israeli in any way possible and apply any negative terms they can to describe Israel, Israelis, and Israeli actions—up to an including “Nazi,” “Holocaust,” and “genocide”—even if they simply do not fit the reality of the situation and are blatant exaggerations (conversely, some Israelis—including Netanyahu himself—trying to link the Palestinian people to Hitler’s Nazis and to call Palestinians “Nazis” is somewhat similarly misguided).  Thus, members of this group wanting to reclaim their homeland and the people driven mostly by sheer ant-Semitism casually throw around the label apartheid for Israel as a state even within Israeli’s 1967 borders, seeking just to use the term to inflict maximum damage and delegitimization on Israel regardless of the facts.

Conclusion: Israel Needs Tough Love from Its Friends or Its Current Insane Trajectory May Doom It

So, while Israel is clearly not an apartheid state, its rule of the West Bank operates under an apartheid regime, to the benefit of illegal Jewish settlers and the detriment of Palestinians, with no end in sight, let alone one contemplated by Israel’s current political leaders.  That a former recent head of Mossad is willing to acknowledge the obvious reality when so many others from the government he was a part of, who are now running Israeli’s government today, and who are part of Israeli society refuse to means this man Tamir Pardo deserves respect for his moral courage, whatever else you think if his career and views.  Much like fascist Trumpists in America, who are hell-bent on maintaining power by gaslighting the public and undermining democracy—twisting or even overthrowing the U.S. constitutional system to support their minority rule and to persecute minorities—those in Israel and elsewhere denouncing Pardo and hell-bent on denying the reality in the West Bank are only propelling Israel further down the descent into fascism in an era that has for years now seen too many nations move in that ominous direction, something I have discussed at great length before.

A militarized apartheid rule of the West Bank continuing for decades more, in which Israelis delude themselves into thinking they are benevolent rulers of a backwards people not deserving equality but whatever is deigned to be thrown their way by Israeli authorities, will not decrease division or authoritarianism inside Israeli, nor will it decrease violence between Israelis and Palestinians, nor improve Israeli’s image around the world or help to reduce a troubling rise in anti-Semitism, nor make Israel safer, more prosperous, or more secure.  If you care about the future of Israel, regardless of how you feel about Palestinians (and I for one have wanted to see freedom, dignity, and a fully sovereign, separate Palestinian state for decades), call out Israel’s mistakes and misdeeds for what they are: call Israeli rule in the West Bank apartheid or Jim Crow.  Israel will not listen to its enemies.  But if enough friends and allies, inside Israel and outside, start calling a spade a spade and correctly use apartheid to describe Israeli rule of the West Bank, it might just jolt Israel from its self-destructive path.

If that does not happen, there may be no hope for saving Israel from undoing its nature as a democratic, Jewish state, from becoming a theocratic or fascist Jewish supremacist undemocratic state—a pariah state like apartheid South Africa before it—from far worse cycles of violence than what is occurring now.  And time is also not on Israel’s side, the self-set, self-destructive time-bombs of its own making primed and ready unless its friends and allies help it to see the light.  But if Israel and its leaders continue on their current course in the West Bank, one of the only things that is certain is that the situation overall will get a whole lot worse for Israelis, Palestinians, and much of the Middle East before there can be any hope, if that, of things getting better.

© 2023 Brian E. Frydenborg all rights reserved, permission required for republication, attributed quotations welcome

Also see Brian’s eBook, A Song of Gas and Politics: How Ukraine Is at the Center of Trump-Russia, or, Ukrainegate: A “New” Phase in the Trump-Russia Saga Made from Recycled Materials, available for Amazon Kindle and Barnes & Noble Nook (preview here).

If you appreciate Brian’s unique content, you can support him and his work by donating here; because of YOU, Real Context News surpassed one million content views on January 1, 2023. Real Context News produces commissioned content for clients upon request at its discretion.

Feel free to share and repost this article on LinkedIn, Facebook, Threads, and Twitter. If you think your site or another would be a good place for this or would like to have Brian generate content for you, your site, or your organization, please do not hesitate to reach out to

By Brian E. Frydenborg (LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter @bfry1981) May 14, 2021; also published by The Times of Israel Blogs May 30, 2021; see my relevant Twitter thread and follow-up article Wading into Israel and Palestine Quicksand, Biden Offers a Diplomacy 101 Class for All

SILVER SPRING—The more you become familiar with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the more banal you realize it truly is.  One tribe with an extreme emotional attachment to a special religious site will become enraged and violent when another tribe with more control over that site and a competing extreme emotional attachment says or does something involving that site; then, a mob is ready to riot, with a countermob ready to riot back and various extremist government security forces and terrorist extremist actors ready to capitalize to further their maximalist positions.

Whether cavemen fighting over a sacred stone 20,000 years ago or Jews and Arabs fighting over the Western Wall/al-Aqsa Mosque/Dome of the rock compound in the Old City of Jerusalem, little changes: particular plots of land or certain building are weaponized and control of and access to them become tools of conflict between different competing ethnic/religious groups.  “Taking back” what is “ours” justifies all sorts of horrors, from suicide bombing and ethnic cleansing to war and genocide.  Without religion involved, there is still plenty to fight about in petty, repetitive ways, but research demonstrates that the viciousness of such conflict gets worse when religion is involved.

This is the utterly unoriginal politics of much of the world, which even explain many of the animating forces behind Trump’s recent Capitol insurrection in America, as I noted for The Jerusalem Report.  Even within specific conflicts, chapters can also be especially repetitive, and that is certainly the case here between Israel and the Palestinians: the current round of rapidly escalating violence began in ways remarkably similar to how the Second Intifada began in terms of the involvement of heavy-handed Israeli actions at al-Aqsa while also resembling in other key ways the outbreak of the 2014 round of violence even as it also thematically touches core issues that sparked conflicts going all the way back to the First Intifada and the major wars dating back to Israel’s founding.  The same holy sites, the same arguments over whose land it was, is, and will be—weaponizations of history for the present and future—the same arguments over occupation and settlements, equality and dignity, discrimination and freedom, security and sovereignty are always there with few variations and mostly played on the same tired notes.

So in important ways, there is nothing new here: the same unresolved issues, the same powers that be not even trying to advance or resolve them or even making them worse, the same systemic negative feedback loop producing the same outrage, fear, grievance, hatred, dehumanization, and violence that certain leaders on both sides keep capitalizing on to justify their extremist, exclusivist ideologies and policies.

And yet, we do have something terrifyingly new in this round of violence.

During this latest of the cycle, some Arab citizens of Israel—many considering themselves primarily Palestinians, some considering themselves primarily Israeli, some having nuanced, mixed views of their identities—have been both attacking Jews and been attacked by gangs and mobs of Jews as mixed communities in Israel are seeing an explosion of intercommunal violence.  In my own time in Israel, Palestine, and Jordan, I found these Arab citizens of Israel to have the most nuanced and least predictable views on the conflict.  Yet of Israeli Jews and Palestinians without Israeli citizenship (including the many Palestinians I met in Jordan), the vast majority were almost entirely one-sided in their views.

Throughout the other conflicts and wars of the past, Arab citizens of Israel have simply stayed out of the fights between Israel and Palestinians and/or Arab states.  Though discriminated against in many ways, Palestinians living in Israel’s internationally recognized pre-1967 borders have vastly more freedoms, rights, and opportunities than Palestinians in de-facto annexed East Jerusalem and especially the Gaza Strip and the West Bank (very few of those in East Jerusalem and none of the Gazans/West Bankers are Israeli citizens or can vote in Israeli national elections; those in the West Bank are subject to a military occupation and Israeli military law at any time Israel chooses to exercise it, and those in Gaza are also subject to intense Israeli restrictions in the something of a giant open-air prison Gaza has been for years).

As in the U.S. with the Black Lives Matter movement, an extraordinary coronavirus year fostered increased social media consumption and allowed for way too much time to stew with unpleasant thoughts, contributing to a tinderbox-like readiness to engage in street activism and releasing pent up rage, so that many who normally would not get involved in protests have become protesters, with protests becoming more violent.  Add to the equation that this is all after a rough month of reflection and fasting during the holy Islamic month of Ramadan in the time of COVID-19, after over a year during the era of peak social media activism during COVID-19 lockdowns (the pandemic medically and economically hitting discriminated populations harder all over the world, in this case Israeli Arabs), after years of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and conservative Israelis failing to address inequality and discrimination against Israeli Arabs while catering to Jewish right-wing extremists in continuing with discriminatory policies and racist rhetoric in Israel (the Israelis in power being perpetual sore winners and crowing loudly over symbolic wins like Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital).

So now these Israeli Arabs have seen their sense of identity drift more towards Palestinian and seen a hostility within them grow towards their right-wing Jewish antagonists.  In the face of sustained extremism and discrimination from Jewish extremist politicians and citizens, they are now responding in kind.  In the past, there has been violence between Palestinians and groups of Israeli settlers living in illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank and, earlier, Gaza; the run-up to the war in 2014 (which I analyzed in detail at the time) involved the kidnapping and murder by Palestinian terrorists three Israeli teens–Naftali Frenkel, Gilad Shaer, and Eyal Yifrah—and the kidnapping and murder by Jewish terrorists of a Palestinian teen from East Jerusalem, Mohammed Abu Khdeir.  But now, there is the worst intercommunal violence inside Israel proper in decades.  Much like some groups of Jews and Arabs began fighting each other in British Mandate Palestine in 1947 in the beginning of civil war, the current violence between Jews and Arab Israelis has senior Israeli officials and others in Israel worried about the prospect of a new civil war.

In a polarized society, when one side or faction becomes too extreme, over time it can often help generate an increase in extremism in other groups.  As an example, most factions in Syria’s current civil war have become radicalized competing with, or fighting against, the brutality of both terrorist ISIS and dictator Bashar al-Assad’s mass-murdering regime, which helped bring out the worst in other factions over time, as I discussed years ago.  After years of the radicalization of the right in the United States, elements of the left are also becoming more extreme (though still not coming close to the insanity of Republicans), as I have also discussed.  So this is hardly unique to Israel, but as Israel lurches rightward and many of its Jews become radicalized, it was only a matter of time before portions of Israel’s Arabs started down a similar path (anyone wanting to understand these dynamics should watch the singular Israeli/HBO miniseries “Our Boys,” about the aforementioned four murders of teens that led to the 2014 Gaza war).

The Israeli historian Benny Morris, in his exceptionally fair history of the “Zionist-Arab Conflict” titled Righteous Victims, includes as his epigram famous lines from W. H. Auden’s famous “September 1, 1939” World War II poem:

I and the public know

What all schoolchildren learn,

That to whom evil is done

Do evil in return.

If anything, this epigram is all too fitting, for the world and for the tragedy unfolding in Israel and Palestine today.

© 2021 Brian E. Frydenborg all rights reserved, permission required for republication, attributed quotations welcome

Also see Brian’s follow-up article Wading into Israel and Palestine Quicksand, Biden Offers a Diplomacy 101 Class for All and Twitter thread on the Natanz attack and his eBook, A Song of Gas and Politics: How Ukraine Is at the Center of Trump-Russia, or, Ukrainegate: A “New” Phase in the Trump-Russia Saga Made from Recycled Materials, available for Amazon Kindle and Barnes & Noble Nook (preview here), and be sure to check out my podcast interview with Georgia election officials Brad Raffensperger and Gabriel Sterling, both cited in Trump’s second Senate trial!

If you appreciate Brian’s unique content, you can support him and his work by donating here

Feel free to share and repost this article on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter. If you think your site or another would be a good place for this or would like to have Brian generate content for you, your site, or your organization, please do not hesitate to reach out to him!

Originally published on LinkedIn Pulse April 28, 2018

by Brian E. Frydenborg (LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter@bfry1981) April 28th, 2018

Support Brian and his work by donating here

AMMAN — Israeli public opinion is, to quote The Economist, “a remarkably forgetful and fickle force.” The same can be said for Israeli politics in general. So it is hardly a stretch to say that measuring Israeli public opinion’s effects on Israeli policy is a significant challenge. And one of the most controversial of all of Israel’s policies over the years has been that of creating and expanding Jewish settlements in Palestinian territory over several decades. Especially given what a lightning-rod issue the settlements are and, in typical Israeli fashion, how complicated everything about them has become, this is a question worth asking.

Challenging Data for a Challenging Question

Almost as soon as I began this project, I knew there were many challenges that would make it impossible for any kind of definitive, clear, unqualified conclusions to emerge from this exploration, in the sense that public opinion cannot simply be said to be Variable A affecting settlement policy, Variable B, in such-and-such a way.

Such simplicity is as elusive as the “Two-State Solution” itself.

For one thing, Israel is a small country, and though it is powerful for its size, it is subject to a remarkable amount of factors from within and without, and its sensitive reactions to these factors are often intense, with Israel’s increasingly volatile neighborhood (and often volatile involvement in that neighborhood) only compounding these effects. Therefore, rather than look at public opinion and settlement policy as some sort of isolated factors, it is essential to account, at the very least, for some of the other major forces that can account for shifts in policy and opinion. Thus, when I was assembling my data points, I knew it would be essential to frame shifts in both Israeli public opinion and Israeli settlement policy against the backdrop of the more salient events affecting Israel, generally, those that could generally affect the feelings of Israelis and, specifically, those that could affect settlement policy. This approach should be more than obvious in the dataset I have uploaded here (this will be an ongoing project, so check back frequently for changes).

As time went on and I looked more and more at the different surveys, I also realized that measuring public opinion in Israel carries a unique set of challenges in contrast to studying similar subjects in the United States. 

The U.S. is a huge country, with hundreds of millions of people spread across a continent; Israel has far less than even ten million people squeezed into a tiny sliver of the Mediterranean coast. During major U.S. elections, political polls are ubiquitous, and even not during election cycles, major issues are polled often. Whatever the polls, there are usually long histories of polling by that firm and other major polling firms, asking relatively similar questions and often the same questions.

Israeli political polling is another beast entirely: there are far, far fewer pollsters, and there is little consistency in how questions are phrased between pollsters and, sometimes, even with the same polling outfit. Also, because there are far fewer data points the polling data must be taken with much more of a grain of salt than American polling.

We simply don’t have ten or even twelve years of data that says “Do you approve or disapprove of Israeli settlements?” What this means is that there is a broad array of approaches to categorizing the data and presenting it. The only agenda I pursued in my presentation was one of simplicity, and I take responsibility for the costs such an approach carries. For example, instead of a question asking “Are you for or against evacuating settlements?” a question might ask “Are you a.) for removing all settlements b.) for removing most settlements except major ones near the Green Line [i.e., 1967 borders] c.) for removing settlements from the Green Line and illegal outposts d.) for removing illegal outposts e.) against any removals?” In this case, I would (and basically did) combine a.), b.), and c.) to refer to serious support for full or partial settlement removal, ignored d.) as not really being conclusive of sentiment supporting settlement removal in general, and took e.) for being against removal. Other may have found it more beneficial to include all these nuances or created different categories and groupings. I opted for the ones I chose, again, for the sake of simplicity, but I welcome comments and suggestions.

Even with the limitations and subjective approach I took, I still feel there is value in looking at this data thus arrayed, and I can say with confidence that no one else has undertaken a similar effort as comprehensive as mine, at least not in English but also not likely in Hebrew, either. As imperfect as the data may be, it can still help to give a relative sense of the forces at work. See the dataset here (data does not include East Jerusalem)

The Inconsistent Effects of Public Opinion on Israeli Settlement Policy

Looking at my (provisional) compilation of the data, in the years just before the Palestinians’ First Intifada (uprising) at the end of 1987, over half of Israelis (as high as 57%) were inclined to annex Palestinian land in part or in full, therefore making many or all the settlements permanent Israeli communities, and support for “land for peace” initiatives was below 50% (as low as 39%). In reaction to the (relatively moderate-to-low-scale) violence of the Intifada, public opinion reversed: sentiment supporting “land for peace” began to steadily increase, and support for annexation dipped below 50% and continued to decline as the Intifada continued. By 1991, the positions has essentially reversed, with one poll showing 58% for “land for peace” style ideas and only 40% for annexation.

Yet with the exception of a small dip in 1989, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir’s hardline government continued with steady settlement population increases and construction expansion, with the highest settler population increases in 1987 and 1991, which also had dramatically higher percentage increases in settlement construction (over 144% and over 314%, respectively). Though the latter coincided with the peak years of the Soviet-Jewish Aliya (immigration) to Israel, U.S. president George H. W. Bush still felt that Shamir’s government was going far too far on settlements, and exerted heavy pressure on him and Israel to curtail settlement growth and construction. Along with changing public sentiment, this helped precipitate the rise of Yitzhak Rabin’s pro-peace Labor government in 1992, which would severely curtail settlement construction, though not so much settlement population growth. 

Here would be one of the times that Israeli public opinion on settlements seemed to lead and push Israel, its politicians, and its government on settlement policy. 

The year before and year of Rabin’s assassination were two of the deadliest years in all of the 1990s for Israelis in terms of Palestinian violence, and, according to one survey, sympathy for settlers among the Israeli public rose in the year after Rabin’s assassination, even as settlement activity was being curtailed. This same year was when Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing Likud, pro-settlement forces pushed Labor out of power, and it is ironic that under Netanyahu’s three years in power, sentiment (with some vacillation) seemed to increase and remain high for “land for peace” (60s and high 50s) initiatives and for evacuating settlements (high 60s/low 70s), while support for annexation was far lower than before (mid-20s). Yet Netanyahu—who had himself hold the housing ministry responsible for settlement construction along with the office of prime minister for the entirety of his prime ministership—pushed ahead robustly with settlement expansion.

This may in part help to explain the rise of Labor and peace candidate Ehud Barak’s government in 1999, under whose watch public opinion in several surveys increased sharply against settlements and rise sharply for “land for peace.”

But this would be short-lived. Under the intense diplomatic efforts of U.S. President Bill Clinton, Barak and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat engaged in intense U.S.-mediated negotiations in 2000, and settlement expansion activity by the Israeli government accordingly fell sharply. But these talks fell apart, with some encouragement by Barak’s rival, Likudnik Ariel Sharon, who could have been fairly said to have helped instigate the Second Intifada late in 2000. Amidst a dramatic rise in violence—far worse than anything during the First Intifada and the rest of the 1990s—Sharon, the famously harsh warrior, toppled Barak’s government amid plummeting support for “land for peace” and settlement evacuation, a pessimism that was only reinforced by the 9/11 attacks in America.

Previously, Labor had ridden waves of anti-settlement and pro-“land for peace” sentiment with Rabin and Barak, and Likud had tried (but failed) to lead public opinion with Netanyahu. Sharon, it seems, would succeed where Netanyahu had failed. But Sharon would have a unique and surprising agenda: even while crushing the Palestinian uprising with overwhelming force, Sharon would shepherd his people towards a historic disengagement, a sort of a “land for peace” led by an archconservative, much like strong anti-Communist Nixon would credibly able to normalize relations with Mao’s China.

Under Sharon, Arafat died and the settler population steadily if moderately expanded, even as Sharon withdrew all 8,500 Jewish settlers from Gaza in 2005 (even allowing for that, both the settler population and settlement construction saw a net increase that year), though Sharon’s government definitely curtailed construction of new units.

The pullout from Gaza caused a rift in the pro-settler Likud party, so much so that Sharon broke off and formed a new, centrist Kadima party, which led a new government that would significantly curtail support for settlement expansion. 

But the next year, Sharon would fall into a coma, while Hamas would win elections in the evacuated Gaza Strip and Israel would become embroiled in an embarrassing and controversial war in Lebanon. Amidst these developments, Israeli anti-settler and “land for peace” sentiment fell sharply, even as Sharon’s Kadima successor, Ehud Olmert, would risk major peace talks with Arafat’s successor, Mahmoud Abbas in 2008. When these fell apart, more conflict in Gaza ensued and set the stage for Netanyahu’s comeback as prime minister. Since then, opinion has been conflicted, with volatile opinions on whether settlements should be evacuated and a tightening of pro/con land-for-peace sentiment and an increase in pro-annexation sentiment up until the major conflict with Gaza in 2014. Sentiment on settlements under Netanyahu remained divided up through 2014, so it seems ironically fitting that in his right-wing, pro-settler government, a moderate has been giving the housing ministry. The major declines in government support for the settlers during this period coincided with Obama’s first-term pressure on Israel to freeze settlement activity and his second-term peace effort, led by John Kerry.

Conclusion: It’s Complicated

In summary, there is no overall consistent effect of public opinion on settlement policy. In the 90s, Labor seemed to chase public sentiment as it turned against settlements and for “land-for-peace,” but violence and an assassination meant this did not lead to any long-term peace deal or long-term change in settlement policy. Likud tried twice—first, failing, second, succeeding—to shape public opinion and succeeded, but that led to a strong-willed Sharon forming a new party, and his coma mirrored Rabin’s assassination attempt in seeing efforts fail before new leadership acted to halt new trends in government policy, in both cases, Netanyahu. Thus, it would seem public opinion is at best only as strong a factor as individual leadership, violence from Palestinians, American pressure, and other x-factor events, and that opinion is highly susceptible to all of these factors. It is public opinion that is more variable then, when compared with relatively consistent settlement policy, perhaps best exemplified in the net increases in settlement construction and population growth the same year Sharon took about 8,500 settlers out of Gaza. 

Thus, whether public opinion shapes settlement policy depends on a number of factors, and is hardly the most dominant of factors affecting that policy.

© 2018 Brian E. Frydenborg all rights reserved, permission required for republication, attributed quotations welcome

Brian E. Frydenborg is an American freelance writer, academic, and consultant from the New York City area currently based in Amman, Jordan. You can follow and contact him on Twitter: @bfry1981

If you appreciate Brian’s unique content, you can support him and his work by donating here 

Feel free to share and repost this article on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter. If you think your site or another would be a good place for this or would like to have Brian generate content for you, your site, or your organization, please do not hesitate to reach out to him!

 Originally published on LinkedIn Pulse November 27, 2015 

A version was later published by The Jerusalem Post as “Encountering Dehumanization” on January 6, 2016

By Brian E. Frydenborg (LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter @bfry1981) November 27th, 2015

HBO

AMMAN — Having just finished a nearly two week trip in Israel, and thinking about my other four trips to Israel, two of which included trips to Palestine, and thinking of my time in Jordan, where I have been living for a year and a half and where many Palestinians live, one thing I have grown to learn is that both Israelis and Palestinians are people who do a great job of winning you over while at the same time unintentionally showing you their glaring faults. Or, to put it another way, the more time you spend with Israelis and Palestinians, the more you come to love both peoples, the more you realize how crazy it is that there is not already peace and that peace is very much possible, and the more you also realize how hard—and why it is so hard—to reach that peace.

In getting an up-close and personal education as to why peace is so difficult, perhaps the most disturbing and even perhaps the most significant obstacle to peace is the level of dehumanization that each side engages in in respect to the other. I have made my views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict clear in my multiple authored articles, one eBook, and in several academic papers publicly available, as well as through social media interaction. I am both pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian and for two states for two peoples. That does not mean I see both sides as equally deserving of blame in this conflict and that it is all 50-50. And I am not here to quantify the dehumanization and compare how each side engages in it and to what degree (that could be a whole separate enterprise). But when it comes to this issue of dehumanization, I am sad to say that far too many people on both sides engage in it, some actively, some more tacitly and/or passively, but it does happen frequently. There is a significant minority in Israel, bereft of political power, which stand up for the rights of Palestinians and fights against their dehumanization; I am sad, also, to say that I see far fewer Palestinians doing the same for Israelis but they do exist, though their smaller numbers give them even less influence on events than their Israeli counterparts, who, in turn, are also struggling mightily to shape events in the current political landscape.

Wissam Nassar/Xinhua Press/Corbis

The dehumanization is particularly tough for me to encounter because I have Jewish and Arab, Israeli and Palestinian friends. When I have to sit and hear one group disparage the other en masse, I see the faces of my friends and am quick to correct their ignorance. And yet, almost all the people spewing the ignorance, often filled with blatant mythology as well as tinges of racism, fear, and paranoia, are just as quick to dismiss my examples as fringe anecdotes or suggest that these friends are not sharing their true beliefs with me (more often the first). I am told that I don’t know “the Arabs” or that I don’t know “the Jews” as if they are generally a monolithic, inhuman species. Also incredibly disturbing are many of their zero-sum mentalities: if I express any sympathy or empathy for the other side, it is a loss in a victimhood Olympics in which each side tries to claim a gold-medal monopoly on suffering, victimhood, and righteousness, where anything positive about “the enemy” is a loss for their own side and must be argued against and dismissed and cannot be tolerated, let alone acknowledged. Similarly, any criticism directed at a side in the eyes of far too many means you are against their side and a partisan of the other. When I ask “Do you think your side does anything wrong or deserves any blame whatsoever?”, I am very often told, without hesitation, “No” in a calm, matter-of-fact way, as if I had just denied that 2+2=4.

Ichud Hatzalah

Such mentalities only breed more violence: it is much easier to kill people when you have reduced them to objects, utterly devoid of deserving any sympathy, who are always wrong, and who are never victims because that territory of victimhood exclusively belongs to your own side and cannot be shared. Much like far too many believe sovereignty and political power and control cannot be shared by both Jews and Arabs in these contested territories, but must be totally controlled by one side or another and the other side should pipe down and be grateful about whatever their adversary deigns to hand out to them; such is the mentality of Jews who would see Israel totally control the West Bank and expect Palestinians to settle for whatever limited rights Israelis are willing to grant them, such is the mentality of Palestinians who will brook no division either and want all Palestinian refugees to return in a single democratic state to be run by Palestinians. Such is the (un?)conscious mentality of people who advocate for policies that would make these the de facto situations on the ground even if not explicitly so. Palestinians who ask Israelis to simply not worry and accept a majority Arab rule over all of historic Palestine have not even made the most basic effort to understand Israeli Jews’ mentality or perspective at all; Israeli Jews who think that Palestinians would even consider being doled out more economic power over their situation while still ceding political and military control to Israel permanently or even just indefinitely similarly demonstrate an equal inability to understand what makes Palestinians tick on their most basic level. Yet this is the natural consequence of dehumanizing the other: they are simply enemies to be defeated, killed, and pushed aside, not fellow human beings to understand, respect, and accommodate.

Until far more Israelis and Palestinians each see the other as fellow humans who have suffered in this conflict, until each side can see their own side is far from blameless, expect little to change in this conflict except for the worse. This is obviously a difficult step, but that does not make it any less necessary.

Dida Mulder

If you think your site or another would be a good place for this content please do not hesitate to reach out to me! Please feel free to share and repost on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter (you can follow me there at@bfry1981)

 Originally published on LinkedIn Pulse November 14, 2015  

By Brian E. Frydenborg (LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter @bfry1981) November 14th, 2015

Avishag Shaar Yashuv/Flash90 

TEL AVIV — As I was reading about and watching the unfolding massive terrorist attacks in Paris, and as I rushed to churn out an article about my initial thoughts, initial feelings, initial responses, there was a large degree of desensitization going on inside me of I worked.  But towards the end, when I could turn more of my brain away from the task at hand and I was just proofing and posting, my emotions started to rear their suppressed heads.  There was a lot of negative stuff, to be sure.  But there were some positive thoughts: looking at the enormous support for France from across the world, seeing the Freedom Tower at the World Trade Center and the Empire State Building light up the Manhattan skyline in the tricolors of the French flag, I was reminded of the outpouring of sympathy and love and shared grief that France, and the world, showed the United States after the 9/11 attacks.  It was nice to see the favor returned by many Americans, nice to see most of the world stand up yet again to reject terror and murder. 

Then I thought about where I was at that moment, in Tel Aviv, part of a trip I am taking through Israel.  I thought, too, of past terrorist attacks in this very city where I was now and in other parts of Israel.  I thought about how much I love Israel and the Israeli people, even though I am extremely critical of their government’s policies towards the Palestinians, whom I also love.  I felt a moment of solidarity with Israelis even though these were attacks that happened in France. 

And then, something of an epiphany hit me: New York, Mumbai, London, Madrid, Ankara, Paris twice in one year now… when these spectacular attacks happened, there was outpouring of international sympathy, of support, of solidarity and love.  But when I thought of Israel, it dawned on me: when Israelis suffer terror attacks, they must often be asking “Where is the love?,” because there are very few marches or protests in the Western or wider world for Israeli Jews when they are attacked, not many that aren’t organized by local Jews or that don’t happen in America.  After a long night of writing, I woke and and shared my feelings with my delightful Israeli Couchsurfing host; as I looked into her eyes, I had to fight back tears as I realized how truly alone she and others must feel.  I told her how sad and sorry I felt that Israelis were so alone when it came to their suffering, and she—a very liberal Israeli who is against the occupation—told me that I was right, that they do feel alone, that she was sad about it, too.

When Israeli security forces and sometimes even Israel civilians, usually settlers, commit attacks that are either clearly excessive in terms of government action or even are terrorism in their own right when talking about Israeli Jewish civilians attacking Palestinian Arabs, the world, social media, the publics of many nations rightly protest, and protest robustly.  In Europe, where there are more Muslims now than previously, the protests are increasingly large and vocal.  This reaction is understandable and fitting and proper.

What is not fitting and proper is the general silence from the people of the world when Israeli civilians are targeted, attacked, wounded, and killed.  Yes, world government leaders tend to read statements of solidarity and support for Israel, and in the U.S. in particular, there are plenty of public shows of support.  But throughout most of the rest of the world, in Muslim nations and in Europe and in other places, there is at best a muted response when Israeli civilians are targeted in terrorist attacks.  Yes, these attacks are often very small in scale, and are not on the scale seen in Paris last night.  But they still happen, and with far more regularity than these other massive international attacks.

Now, I am not a fan of Netanyahu, but he has a point; when discussing the fact that the Iranian regime regularly makes incendiary statements against Israel (and there can be a discussion about how serious this rhetoric is and what exactly it means), he noted the “utter” and “deafening silence” that these threats were met with by the world community; he then stared down the members of the UN General Assembly silently for forty-five-seconds to drive this point home.

Well, that’s how Israelis feel, even many liberal Israelis, when it comes to terrorism: they are alone, they have little or no support, and even when it is Israeli civilians being killed, the focus is still on criticizing Israel.

Now, let me be clear: Israel has a pathological need to constantly be the victim, and though there are notable and sizable exceptions, Israelis tend to see pretty much anything they do to the Palestinians as justified and necessary, and many of these people feel the Palestinians as a whole deserve their lot and this treatment.  I’m not here to make excuses for Israeli policy, the nearly-fifty-year occupation that has led to systematic abuses and degredations of millions of Palestinians, the settlements, the emerging apartheid-like system in the West Bank, the siege of Gaza, and the discrimination of Israeli citizens of Arab Palestinian descent; no one should.  All of these things are factors which help to explain Palestinian terrorism and violence against Israelis.  They must be understood and acknowledged, and it is good to protest against and condemn all of it.

But—and this is key—these cannot be cited as an excuses or justificationsfor Palestinian violence against civilians.  And when Israeli civilians are maimed, wounded, and injured by Palestinians, I’m not saying that these topics are inappropriate to discuss.  But when Israeli civilians are attacked, that must be condemned first and loudest; the crowd that condemns (and rightly so) the Israeli occupation loudly and without qualification must also be able and needs to condemn violence against Israeli civilians without qualification.  And, frankly, the occupation is an ongoing, long-term thing.  When Israeli civilians are targeted, the proper focus is on the civilian victims; that day is theirs, and the occupation will still be there to be a major focus another day.

The world is asking—and must continue to ask—much from Israel.  The occupation of the West Bank and the siege of Gaza are intolerable and must end.  But the world that asks much from Israel would do much to realize they make Israel less receptive when it does not stand against the murder of Israeli civilians with the same passion and vehemence as it stands against Israel’s occupation and other wrongs committed against Palestinians.  When Israelis feel alone, that their suffering is not acknowledged, that their lives and their dead matter not to major world populations, especially a Europe that perpetrated the Holocaust against them, when the very powers that claim they will help protect Israel and stand for its interests in any major peace agreement with the Palestinians and other Arabs show little regard for Israeli life, it makes Israelis want to withdraw from the world, a world they see as hating them and wishing them harm, a world that stays silent when civilian men, women, and children are terrorized, maimed and murdered.  It makes them have no faith in any idea of an international order and to feel alone, isolated, unloved, hated, and insecure.  The more powerful sides in conflicts often only willingly make peace from positions of strength; by making Israel feel insecure when it comes to terrorism committed against Israeli civilians, the chances of peace, which includes a measure of justice for Palestinians, fade.

We saw the world stand up against terror in reaction to the barbaric attacks in Paris yesterday; let’s also stand up for terror against Israeli civilians.  Standing up for Israeli human life does not mean you condone the occupation or the many abuses of the Israeli state, does not betray any solidarity with Palestinians; and much more so than anything France has done in regard to ISIS and the conflict against ISIS, the up-close-and-personal-decades-long-oppression of Palestinians by Israel is clearly a major driver in the violence of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  But unless Israelis are shown more love and support from the global community, especially from Europe but also from Muslim lands and their many Muslim inhabitants, unless people stop being silent or outright justifying attacks against Israeli civilians, Israel will never feel secure enough to take the very real risks necessary for a just and lasting peace.  And regardless of your thoughts on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israeli civilians that are victims of terror deserve your sympathy as much as any civilian victims of terror, and standing up against their murder is always the right thing to do. 

Some would say that the Israeli public are not “innocent,” and that because they empower leaders like Netanyahu, it is fair to judge them.  This is not an unreasonable position; but it is one thing to judge voters for bad politics, and another to say that their bad politics justifies a death warrant at the hands of terrorists; I shudder to think what would happen to many Americans, Russians, and others if our voting records made us fair targets for murder and terrorism.

Next time Israeli civilians are murdered in a terrorist attack—and it makes me sad say that there will 100% be a next time—condemn the attacks in a way that remembers who the victims at that specific moment are in a way that does not make Israel or Israelis immediately responsible for the attack, and that does not try to warp the victimhood of the recently murdered into some kind of red carpet for someone else’s victimhood.  When Palestinians are killed wrongly by Israelis, they don’t deserve to simply be dismissed as inevitable casualties of the response to Palestinian terrorism; when Israeli civilians are killed by Palestinian terrorism, they don’t deserve to written off simply as an inevitable consequence of the Israeli occupation; all these people are people, not ends to prove a political point. 

If you stood up for the French against terrorism, if you stand up for the Palestinians against occupation, be sure to stand up for Israelis against terrorism.  No one wins when Israelis mourning civilians murdered by terrorists stand alone; rather, we all lose.

Reuters

If you think your site or another would be a good place for this content please do not hesitate to reach out to me! Please feel free to share and repost on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter (you can follow me there at@bfry1981)

Originally published on LinkedIn Pulse October 26, 2015 

By Brian E. Frydenborg (LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter @bfry1981) October 26th, 2015

AP Photo/Nasser Shiyoukhi

AMMAN — As the sadly predictable violence suffered by both Israeli and Palestinian civilians seems to spiral out of control into something approaching an uprising or sorts (maybe a Third Intifada, maybe not, only time will tell) it is important to know who to blame so there can be accountability and way forward.

Blame must necessarily be placed more heavily where there resides more power. Keeping this in mind, first and foremost, we must blame Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his conservative coalition governments, in power for over six-and-a-half years, since March 2009.

Netanyahu has for years never been enthusiastic about the peace process; he even bragged about actively undermining the Oslo Accords while Prime Minister from 1996-1999, helping to set the stage for the Second Intifada; he was against the 2005 Gaza “disengagement” plan of then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, quitting his cabinet post in Sharon’s government in protest; and all through Obama’s presidency, he has resisted serious peace talks, participating only reluctantly and has been unwilling to discuss major final-status issues, in particular the final borders with a Palestinian state. All the while, he has been a champion of illegal Israeli settlement expansion on what is legally Palestinian territory, the final status of which is supposed to be determined in negotiations, and he has refused intense requests from the Obama administration to fully halt settlement expansion during peace talks, undermining whatever good faith could have existed. He even allowed his government to repeatedly announce plans for settlement expansion at the most inopportune moments, leading one of his senior ministers in his own government to accuse his government of deliberately undermining negotiations. Netanyahu used the horrific murder and kidnapping of three Israeli teens in the summer of 2014 as an excuse to pursue an agenda of political repression against Hamas, even though Hamas as an organization was not responsible for the lone-wolf atrocity.

At this time, Hamas had also been observing a cease-fire since November 2012 for a year-and-a-half, and all throughout that period Netanyahu did nothing to alleviate the harsh blockade of Gaza in the long-term despite Hamas’ dutiful observation of the cease-fire. The crackdown against Hamas was the largest security operation in the West Bank since the Second Intifada ended ten years earlier and was seen by Hamas as a provocation after it had been on its best behavior in years, refraining from engaging in terrorism and violence against Israelis. Netanyahu continued the crackdown, and Hamas responded with rocket fire.

The main point to make here is this: Israel has almost all the power in this situation. It has the real sovereignty over the whole West Bank and de facto sovereignty in Gaza, where Israel totally controls the airspace, coastal waters, land crossings, population movement, controls most of its taxation, and still occupies almost 17% of Gaza’s land. Netanyahu makes bold demands of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, his governing party of Fatah, and Hamas, but deliberately disempowers them to the degree that they are not generally capable of meeting his demands. Palestinian officials, whether of Hamas or of Fatah, have little control over anything and that control is totally at Israel’s discretion. Fatah renounced violence and basically kept to this for years now. Hamas has not. If Netanyahu had a productive strategy, it would be rewarding areas controlled by Abbas’s Fatah for nonviolence by ending the occupation—in place since 1967—in some of these areas. This would in turn pressure Hamas to become less violent as the Palestinians living under Fatah control would see the benefits of non-violence and cooperation while those living under Hamas control would become jealous.

What does Bibi do instead? He makes no major concessions or serious reductions of the occupation at all to Fatah and continues with massive settlement expansion in areas under Fatah control despite years of security cooperation that has been praised for years by Israeli security officials; when Hamas is non-violent for over a year and half, Netanyahu also does nothing to reward this behavior. As the major power broker, Netanyahu at the helm of the Israeli government sets the stage, and has the ability to reward and encourage non-violence; when he does not do this, he is essentially encouraging violence and is empowering Hamas and undermining Fatah and Abbas. Hamas can point to Fatah and the leadership of Abbas, and say “See what cooperation with the Israelis gets you? More occupation, more settlements!”

This was Netanyahu’s approach from the moment he took office through today, including the many anguishing months of fruitless talks led by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and in the run-up to last summer’s Gaza conflict and in his lack of initiative in the year since leading up to this current round of violence. In his actions Netanyahu has shown that he not only does not care to seek real peace in the form of a two-state solution with the Palestinians, he has also shown no inclination to reduce or end the oppressive occupation. He is also no stranger to divisive rhetoric, most recently on display in his trying to shamefully and falsely claim a Palestinian inspired Hitler to carry out the Holocaust, inspiring condemnation from many Israelis and historians.

But on another level, we can—and should—blame everyone.

The Israeli people had chances and came close to removing Netanyahu from office twice in recent years; they did not. They have continually empowered him, no doubt out of an understandable sense of fear, but in doing so they are helping to perpetuate this conflict. And how is there room in the Israeli public space for incitement and right-wing mobs that attack Arabs (sometimes Jews are mistaken for Arabs and attacked by other Jews) and even Jewish leftist dissenters, and for significant numbers of settlers (supported by the IDF!) to attack Palestinians and their property?

The Palestinians understandably are now turning away from Abbas, who has been unable (through little fault of his own) to produce any results to show for his cooperation with Netanyahu. This may be understandable, but it, too, is unwise. To turn towards violence and Hamas and intifada is not a recipe for success, it is a recipe for more bloodshed, and, as always, the vast majority of those dying will be the Palestinians themselves. We are seeing young children forming groups to throw rocks at Israeli security personnel, groups of young women too; where are their parents? How are they allowed to participate in riots and violence on such a regular basis? When will the incitement of violence and glorification of Palestinians who attack Israeli civilians stop?

Bibi has had the power to help nudge both societies away from such behavior, but has done just the opposite. He is the director for a staged play awash in violence and conflict, but most of the actors in Israeli and Palestinian society are all too willing to play their part. Israelis and Palestinians who advocate peace and coexistence are increasingly marginalized by their respective societies and are devoid of meaningful political power. This latest time the curtain has risen for a show of predictably increasing violence, there is plenty of blame to go around, indeed.

If you think your site or another would be a good place for this content please do not hesitate to reach out to me! Please feel free to share and repost on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter (you can follow me there at@bfry1981)

If you can’t understand that Obama’s overall Middle East strategy is starting to work, you don’t know what you’re talking about

 Originally published on LinkedIn Pulse May 21, 2015   

By Brian E. Frydenborg (LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter @bfry1981) May 21st, 2015

This piece was The Russian International Affairs Council’s (RIAC) “Post of the Month” for June/July, and was also published by Stupidparty Math v. Myththanks to Patrick Andendall and by Tuck Magazine.

The cocks who crow “failure” every time the sun rises about the Obama Administration’s overall Middle East strategy—and we will be hearing their mindless crowing at its highest decibels since the competition within the Republican Party for the Party’s presidential nomination is now officially underway—have no sense of strategy themselves and dangerously substitute tactical-here-and-nows and pointless posturing for real strategy. That’s not to say some of the Obama Administration’s Middle East policies aren’t lacking, but overall the Administration has more progress and sound approaches to point to than failures and mismanagement. Below, all of the Obama Administration’s major Middle East policies are broken down and given a letter grade. Here, then, is a look at all the major efforts of the Obama Administration in the Middle East, and as it covers a lot of territory this has been broken up into three parts, this being Part I and covering the U.S.-Muslim world reset, Iraq, and Israel/Palestine.

Other articles in this series:

Grading Obama’s Middle East Strategy (Sensibly): Part II: Syria

A tense triumvirate in September, 2009- Doug Mills/The New York Times

AMMAN — Well, here we are again. Far too many “experts,” from the far leftto (especially) those who lean right and even many non-Americans, are ready to claim that Obama is practically starting the apocalypse with his foreign policy. While hysterical, laughable claims about possible nuclear warover Ukraine and many other issues fall into this category, the Middle East situation in particular inspires a remarkable number of myopic and dim-witted exclamations not only from the Republican White House hopefuls, but also many in the commentariat and the Twitteratti. Never mind the track record of this commentary-class who are naysaying Obama’s moves (and to a degree lack thereof, but more on that later), and never mind that the generally ill-informed Twitteratti emerge practically every day with some new hysterics that that there is barely time to call them out on their hysterics of old. These Chicken Littles of all levels proclaim that the sky is falling so often, that one must marvel that there is any sky left for us to enjoy at this point if even a fraction of their panic-mongering can be taken seriously. What is particularly amusing is that many of the people who are blaming Obama for the imminent collapse of the world order and Pax Americana are the same people who blame him for U.S. economic woes, as if things were great in January 2009 and America was not in the midst of the worst economic and financial crisis since the Great Depression. Still even more amusing and amazing are that many of these people are both the people who led America into the Great Recession and into invading Iraq.

Having said this, I will am quite happy to repeat that I find the Obama Administration’s foreign policy to be far from perfect, and have made some of my own disagreements with it quite vocally and publicly on matters from Syria to Israel/Palestine, among others. So I write this neither as an apologist nor as a hater, but as someone who has studied the Middle East for much of the past fifteen years (including some studying abroad in the region and, most recently, actually living in the Middle East). Rather from a position of ideology, I simply try to look at each situation, country, organization, etc. in light of whatever current issue is at hand, and try to see who is trying to make things better, who is disrupting for less-than-altruistic reasons, and how successful these various parties are in their efforts and whether or not such efforts actually help people or hurt people in both the short and long-terms.

A few basic points, though, need to be reiterated before we launch into a discussion here:

• Obama took office in January, 2009, and had to deal with a Middle Eastthat had become an overall festering disaster from the actions of the Bush Administration but also from the terrible policies of local rulers, from Hosni Mubarak in Egypt to Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel, from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran to (the recently departed) King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and also from the actions of a number of other foreign patrons, like Russia. While some of the American disasters had been partly mitigated by some competent self-correction (see Secretary of Defense Gates, General Petraeus, and the 2007 “Surge”), it is still undeniable that Obama inherited a situation in the Middle East that was probably worse than any previous American president ever had to deal with before. And those who say the situation got worse for a while under his watch may be right, but that is a statement of fact that in no way includes presiding over with responsibility, as this would be like blaming Lincoln for the Civil War or FDR for WWII. Rather, events were in motion and grievances raw and waiting to explode long before January 2009, it just took some time until after that for it all to boil over.
• The crises of the “Arab Spring” and its offshoot situations in Libya, Yemen, and most of all Syria had little to do with anything Obama did, and those trying to place primary blame for any of these local revolutions and wars are way off the mark. Locals were just as surprised as Americans at the Arab Spring, as well.
• As far as Israel/Palestine, Obama inherited a Bibi Netanyahu who had little-to-no desire to take the steps necessary for peace and an emasculated Palestinian Authority led by an emasculated Mahmoud Abbas, with the emasculation largely by Israeli design not just over the past few years but over decades.

Now that we have reminded people that the Middle East was not Vancouver or Switzerland before Obama took office, we have to think about what Obama’s major goals have been for U.S. policy in the region, why he has these goals, and how successful he has been in moving towards or fulfilling these goals. We can then give a letter “grade” on each of these for Obama and his Administration’s efforts so far.

In no particular order, let’s go through these major goals:

1.) Resetting U.S. relations with the Muslim world

I think we all remember Obama’s lofty Cairo address at Al-Azhar University, merely months into his presidency. At that point, Muslims were still in the “he’s not George W. Bush, he’s black, and his father was raised in a Muslim family” mode. However, escalation of U.S. military efforts in Afghanistan (a.k.a. Obama’s “surge”), Obama’s (wise) overall policy of not shying away from the use of drones in principle to go after terrorists training, plotting, and operating in ungoverned spaces, the taking out of Osama bin Laden by violating Pakistani sovereignty, still failing to fulfill his promise to close the U.S. prison at Guantánamo Bay over six years into his presidency, and lack of progress for the Palestinians achieving statehood combined with continued(and increasing) U.S. support of Israel have all led (unfairly, but quite understandably) to a feeling among Muslims that there was little to distinguish between George W. Bush and Barack Obama. The fact is that the lofty rhetoric and high idealism of the (now somewhat infamous) Cairo speech was not matched with much of the action that Muslim publics wanted to see from a U.S. President: an end to drone strikes and military operations, the closing of Guantánamo, and real, substantive pressure on Israel and a lessening of U.S. support for Israel on behalf of Palestinians. While it was not realistic to expect any U.S. president to take away most of or all military options for dealing with terrorists in many of the weak states of the Muslim world, based on his own rhetoric Obama would have to be guilty of raising expectations on both Guantánamo and on Israel and the Palestinians far beyond what he has delivered and far below the amount of effort that should have come after such a speech.

Grade: D+ overall; more recently: C-

We don’t give Mr. Obama an F here because we are talking about the Muslim “world,” which, although mostly the people, also includes leaders and governments. This is because, despite his unpopularity on the street-level, the coalition he has put together to confront ISIS includes several Middle Eastern Muslim nations not just financing operations, as has been standard operating procedure in the past, but actually taking part in hostilities in a significant way. So one can say that recently, Obama has shown to have increased his ability to work with Muslims leader, if not endear himself to their people. In this way, then, Obama resembles George W. Bush’s father, George H. W. Bush, who was able to include a wide array of regional Muslim nations in the 1990-91 Gulf War, more George W. was able to include in his 2003 misadventure. So even if Obama remains deeply unpopular among Muslims publics in many parts of the world, he deserves credit from getting more out of Muslim leaders recently than his predecessor.

2.) Ending U.S. combat involvement in Iraq while maintaining the U.S. role of a key ally and supporter of Iraq

Here is a goal that no one should be surprised about: Illinois state senator Obama, U.S. Senator Obama, Democratic presidential primary candidate Obama, and Democratic presidential nominee Obama all made it clear his goal was to end the Iraq War, specifically to end the U.S. combat role there. The fact that he opposed it more vocally than, and before, Hillary Clinton, who had voted for the authorization to use force in Iraq, was arguably the issue which most distinguished Obama from Clinton, and which propelled him to a Democratic primary victory over her. I will state here that I was, in much of the period before he was elected President, concerned about this position of his. While it was clear to me that Iraq had been a disaster and that the decision to invade was wrong, I felt that we owed the Iraqi people a lot for invading them erroneously and destroying their society through a combination of carelessness, incompetence, stupidity, and hubris. Yet before Obama was running for president, we had been able to improve the security situation greatly through some major changes in leadership and the accompanying “Surge,” as I have noted a few times before, but there was still a lot to be done and while I was more and more doubting the ability of the U.S. to achieve its goals in Iraq, I had not yet come to the position where I was comfortable with a withdrawal of U.S. forces from a combat role. In other words, I didn’t even want to go into the store, but having broken the merchandise once we were in the store, I felt we had to fix things and couldn’t just leave (see Colin Powell’s so-called “Pottery Barn” doctrine). In some ways, Obama struck me as a bit naïve and idealistic in his articulated foreign policy, and that was one of many reasons why I was a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries. I was particularly nervous that he was going to pick a vice presidential candidate who was very light on national-level and foreign policy experience, someone like Virginia Governor Tim Kaine or others who were rumored top picks at the time. John McCain’s long experience as a moderate “maverick” Republican who was willing to stand up to his party and to do so often, allowed me to consider voting for him at this juncture, in the summer of 2008. But when Obama nominated Joe Biden as his vice president, my fears of a radical, naïve foreign policy were assuaged and I felt the pick sent a clear signal that Obama would not do anything too quickly and too drastically in Iraq that would cause a catastrophic, sudden power vacuum. Conversely, McCain’s picking of the almost cartoonishly buffoonishneophyte Sarah Palin to be his vice presidential nominee made it clear to me that the aging maverick was unfit for the presidency.

As events in Iraq continued to show no serious political progress despite our security gains, the Bush Administration and the Iraqi government, in the midst of the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign to determine Bush’s successor, completed negotiations and agreed on a withdrawal of all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. And let’s just repeat that tidbit from the last sentence, for all the world and especially American conservatives to see: the administration of George W. Bush committed the U.S. to withdrawing its combat troops from Iraq by the end of 2011, which is exactly the same time frame in which Obama would eventually do just that. Years later, Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State in 2008 and a major player in the negotiations, maintained that the Administration’s intention was for that deadline to be renegotiated and/or for a “residual force for our training with the Iraqis,” but the Bush Administration—again, this is key—found itself unable to come to agreement with the exact same issue the Obama Administration found was its primary obstacle to negotiating for this same residual force: immunity of U.S. troops from prosecution by the Iraqi government, standard in any such agreement, known as status of forces agreements (SOFAs). And what is not to be missed here is that the Bush Administration, in agreeing to the 2011 withdrawal timeline mere months before it would be out of office, punted the responsibility to changing that agreement to what it actually intended it to be to the next president’s administration. So basically, regardless of any intent to change or add onto the Bush Administration’s 2008 agreement later—and betting on a future round of negotiations is always a risky bet since you cannot ever guarantee the same leaders or conditions—the Bush Administration still set the stage and the timetable for a withdrawal of all U.S. combat troops by 2008 through its own choice, through its own actions, by failing to obtain any agreement on a residual U.S. force because the Iraqi government would not agree to grant U.S. troops immunity from prosecution (which is exactly why the Obama Administration was unable to come to agreement on the very same issue!). By putting the onus on a future administration to either undo or change the agreement they had negotiated just before leaving office, those senior Bush Administration officials involved in the 2008 agreement who are criticizing Obama’s not coming to SOFA agreement on a residual force in Iraq are criticizing Obama’s team for what they themselves were unable to do. It is impossible to take any such criticism coming from them seriously, which can only be considered absurd or hypocritical at best.

Around the same time the 2008 Bush Administration agreement to withdraw from Iraq was finalized, I was starting to become comfortable with the idea of a gradual, eventual withdrawal from Iraq, and with Biden’s selection as VP, Obama’s subsequent elaboration on his ideas on Iraq, and the selection of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State once Obama had been elected, I became more confident that Obama’s team would not conduct a withdrawal hastily or irresponsibly. Still, I was torn on the issue of a withdrawal itself, but as Obama’s early years in the White House unfolded and the security situation in Iraq improved without any major political agreements being forged by Iraq’s Shiite political leadership—led by Iraq’s Prime Minister, Nouri Kemal al-Maliki—with the Sunni or Kurdish minorities, agreements that would be key in creating any lasting stability in Iraq, I became convinced that there was little more that U.S. forces could accomplish in Iraq. Having helped establish a dramatic improvement in security in 2007 with the surge compared to the previous year, and seeing each year U.S. forces remained in Iraq have a significant reduction in violence and Iraqi civilian casualties, the U.S. had succeeded in giving Iraq and its leaders the security space necessary to negotiate politically without concurrent violence dictating terms to those threatened by such violence. Even once U.S. forces had totally withdrawn in December 2011—and the withdrawal had been going on since 2010—the year 2012 saw virtually the same level of dramatically improved security as 2011 and 2010, with all three years being the safest in Iraq since before the 2003 U.S. invasion. Yet Maliki, Prime Minister since before the 2007 “Surge,” and his supporters squandered very real, very workable opportunities from during and after the surge over the course of over five years—which is more time in office than some U.S. presidents—and set the stage for rebellion in 2013 instead of reconciliation, as I have previously written. If Maliki was not going to use the massive gains in security in from 2007-2011, while American troops were still in Iraq, to make the necessary compromises in order to calm down angry Sunnis and Kurds and to put Iraq on the path away from sectarian division and civil war and towards stability and reconciliation, what was the point of having U.S. troops there anymore, shoring up a government that was unwilling to govern in the interests of all Iraqis? If anything, having U.S. forces there to support and protect his government when he was unwilling to compromise gave Maliki more cover to avoid reaching out to Sunnis and Kurds.

So by the time the Obama Administration completed the withdrawal of U.S. troops in December 2011, I had come to agree that, having spent blood and treasure to give Iraqi politicians breathing room to make politics work—the explicit stated objective of the “Surge”—while having seen no serious effort at politics on the part of Iraq’s government, having seen that our leverage and influence (being eclipsed by Iran) was clearly no longer high enough in Iraq produce meaningful results, and having seen Iraq clearly align itself with Iran over America, it made sense to get out. The “Surge” and subsequent maintaining and improving of its security gains may not have 100% fulfilled our moral and ethical responsibility for all the damage we caused and contributed to in Iraq from 2003-2006, but in 2011 especially it was clear there was no point in staying at all, especially if Maliki would not give U.S. troops immunity. So the right decision had been made, but the Bush Administration deserved some credit as well for agreeing to the initial timetable to which Obama stuck. And, as will be discussed below, he handled the ISIS in Iraq debacle in a way that very much aided Iraq’s long-term interests.

Grade: A+

Obama withdrew from Iraq and was ahead of the curve compared to many in realizing American troops could not bring about the politics necessary to stabilize Iraq, but he did so in a responsible, gradual way that no sane person could say caused a drastic power vacuum or directly caused Iraq’s more recent woes. Just like Bush (and like any U.S. president would have), he chose not to agree to allow a U.S. residual non-combat force to stay and train/support Iraqi forces when Maliki would not grant them immunity. Nothing to complain about here, and I agree that a residual force would have been better but that is 100% on Maliki not granting immunity and having already committed to his Iranian allies that he would see our troops out in 2011. We will come to ISIS (and Obama’s mild military reengagement in Iraq) and Syria as separate issues.

3.) Israeli/Palestinian Peace

Here, one may be tempted to make more of the efforts of the Obama Administration than they actually represent, but at the same time we should not minimize them.

To be sure, Obama has publicly and in speeches, beginning especially with his big Cairo speech (see above) months into his presidency, highlighted the plight of Palestinians and the need for Israeli settlements to stop expanding into what is supposed to the core of a Palestinian state. Obama tried (perhaps too hard), and failed, to get Israel to agree to a full stop, or freeze, in settlement construction early in his presidency as a way to build up badly needed faith on the Palestinian side that Israelis were serious about negotiations, instead meekly settling for a “partial” Israeli freeze from late 2009 through much of 2010 after applying no substantive pressure to Israel beyond speeches and meetings. Even while the Obama Administration was trying shore up support for the talks, Israel announced the construction of 1,600 settlement housing units to be built on illegally occupied, disputed land in East Jerusalem (which was occupied in 1967 along with the West Bank and Gaza and which Israel has held in defiance of multiple binding resolutions of the United Nations Security Council over the decades since, beginning with the unanimously-agreed-upon Resolution 242 that included a “yes” vote of the U.S.). Moreover, this announcement came as Biden was visiting Israel to lead the charge for making the peace talks happen. This is equivalent of two people negotiating over splitting a pizza, and one side eating slices the other is claiming during negotiations, and eating this pizza right in front of the sponsor of the negotiations. Even after the partial freeze was agreed to, Israel continued building in in East Jerusalem and allowed thousands of announced “exceptions” and some unannounced exceptions that were in violation of even the limited freeze to which it had agreed. In addition, Israel also allowed a much higher than usual number of settlements to be approved before it agreed to the partial freeze so that, even while new construction was not authorized for some time, the pace of building hardly changed at all, and the pace only increased greatly after the nominal freeze.

Despite such disingenuous behavior on Israel’s part, at no time did the Obama Administration publicly even raise the prospect of reducing Israeli’s billions in military aid. In fact, throughout Obama’s entire presidency, U.S. aid has increased every year Obama has been in office, with the exception of a minor reduction in 2013 due to mandatory across-the-bard budget cuts imposed by the sequestration process, the outcome of Congressional inability to agree on a budget. And yet, when the recent hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for Israeli and joint U.S.-Israeli missile defense systems, including the highly effective Iron Dome system used to great effect against Hamas and others’ rockets in the Gaza conflict in the summer of 2014, is considered part of U.S. foreign aid to Israel (it is formally part of the U.S. defense budget and not classified as foreign aid), 2013, like every other year, saw an increase in aid. In addition, the Obama Administration has made many moves to block actions against Israel in the United Nations Security Council before they even came to light, and was the only “no” vote(which also served as a veto, given the U.S. position as a permanent veto-wielding member of the Security Council) against a resolution condemning Israeli settlements at a crucial juncture in February 2011 after talks between Israeli and Palestinians had broken down. Rather than pressure Israel substantively to stop settlement expansion and begin substantive talks, with its veto the U.S. instead encouraged Israel’s course of intransigence, occupation, and settlement expansion, even as it publicly condemned such action but only with mere words. The veto was not only hypocritical, it undermined the stated policy of every U.S. president since 1967 beginning with Lyndon Johnson and needlessly undermined the Obama Administration’s own concurrent efforts. Even with well over three more years of Israeli defiance on the settlements issue, the most substantive action the Obama Administration has taken to date was to merely delay for a short period of time some arms shipments last summer at the height of Israel’s grossly disproportionate assault on Gaza.

In other words, Obama sent Benjamin Netanyahu, then (and still) the Prime Minister of Israel, a clear message: “Go back on your agreements, play words game and with technicalities, completely undermine the spirit of an agreement, provoke the Palestinians by building on land you are supposed to be negotiating over, and we will complain publicly but still happily, freely, and increasingly give you lots of money and assistance, as well as diplomatic cover. I am too timid politically to actually threaten anything substantive against you even if you disrespect my Administration and even my Vice President personally, so, though you are the junior partner in the relationship, feel free to do anything you want, to ignore what me and my team say, and to not worry about your billions in U.S. aid. In fact, get ready for that aid to increase…”

Now, this is not what the Obama Administration intended to convey. It certainly did not say this, and there has been a valiant effort first by Obama then especially by Secretary of State John Kerry to try to help Israel see that its settlement policy not only harms Palestinians but also harms Israel’s interests by keeping millions of West Bank Palestinians under Israeli control and forcing the Israeli Jewish-majority democratic state of Israel to either become an Arab-majority country that outvotes Israel’s Jewish minority or to become a non-democratic, apartheid-like state which denies equal rights to the Arabs under its control in order to preserve Jewish control of the government. Other options that would forcibly remove millions of Palestinians from the West Bank or Israel would cause Israel majorproblems with the international community and seem not highly possible in implementation or probable.

Thus, to America’s credit, it has tried being a friend to Israeli in emphatically pressuring it with public speeches and in private meetings, including some unpleasant and animated meetings between Kerry and Netanyahu during the last round of failed talks which precipitated the violent confrontation in Gaza last summer. Senior U.S. officials—including Kerry and, apparently privately, Obama—and many others—Including Tzipi Livni, one of Israel’s own chief negotiators—have made it clear, as I have pointed out, that Netanyahu and the Israeli government bear the majority of responsibility for the lack of progress in peace talks with the Palestinians. So, let’s be clear: that is not Obama’s fault, nor that of his Administration.

What Obama can be blamed for is for not using any of his real leverage with Netanyahu and Israeli hardliners: the what is now well over $3 billion in annual aid to Israel and the U.S. veto power of what would be binding United Nations Security Council resolutions against Israeli actions regarding settlements and its occupation and control of Palestinian territory. All carrot and no stick over a long period of time is not a recipe for success. By leaving this leverage untouched and essentially rewarding Israel for its stubbornness and settlement expansion, the Obama Administration, despite any words or speeches, has encouraged Israel’s (self-)destructive policies, empowered Israeli’s right-wingers, and weakened Israel’s left, a left which is more serious about peace. In a very similar way, U.S. actions have also undermined Palestinians moderates like Mahmoud Abbas and Salaam Fayyad and empowered extremists like Hamas, as I have previously pointed out.

While, again, Netanyahu and the Israeli government are the most responsible for driving the dynamics, U.S. policy has not helped, and, overall, has only made things worse. And even as senior Israeli officials outlandishly disrespected Kerry when he was in the midst of leading talks in 2014, even as Netanyahu just delivered a major speech to a joint session of the U.S. Congress—wholly unprecedented because both a foreign head of state was invited by the American domestic opposition (Republicans) without the involvement or approval of the White House or the State Department in a blatant violation of protocol (a violation publicly criticized by over 180 former Israeli security officials for damaging Israel’s relationship with the U.S.) and because this foreign head of state delivered an insulting-to-Obama, not to mention misleading speech before a formal session of Congress to rally support against the Obama Administration’s own policy on Iran (Netanyahu foolishly wants more sanctions on Iran and illogically opposes Obama’s sound framework for, and attempt at reaching, a deal with Iran on its nuclear program, while Obama wants to hold off while negotiations are taking place and close the deal outline by the framework—one must wonder how much abuse and disrespect the Obama Administration is willing to suffer at the hands of Netanyahu’s Israeli government before there are any real consequences or penalty. Because in addition to undermining the whole Israeli-Palestinian peace process by holding back so timidly and encouraging unending chutzpah on the part of Netanyahu, such non-action on Obama’s part undermines the office of the presidency and American standing in the world, as well as humiliates Obama personally, when all can see how America’s supposedly closest “ally” mistreats it when there are serious disagreements on policy and that there are no substantive consequences for such mistreatment.

Grade: D+

Obama deserves some credit for robust public diplomacy consistently condemning Israeli settlement expansion and even condemning the tactics used in Gaza last summer, and as well as the verbal efforts during many private meetings between senior Israeli and American officials including Netanyahu, Obama, and Kerry. That is why an “F” grade is not given here. But, at a crucial time during this conflict when every year without an agreement makes getting to an agreement dramatically harder, not using America’s veto power or billions of dollars in annual aid to Israel as leverage while relying just on words to pressure Israel into saving itself and treating Palestinians humanely has clearly been ineffective throughout the more than six years of Obama’s presidency. To keep doing the same thing over and over again with the same approach is to invite the same result, a result that has not helped defuse a very unstable situation and serves only to increase tension and bloodshed. Basically, Obama has literally failed to put U.S. money where his mouth is, and the interests of America, Israel, and Palestinians have all suffered as a result. In addition, humiliating treatment by Netanyahu & Co. with no serious response from Team Obama has diminished the prestige of and respect for the office of the presidency, not to mention Obama himself.

*****

Continue to Part II

That’s it for Part I, in the next two parts: first the Obama Administration’s policies on the Syrian Civil War, then (overall) Arab Spring, ISIS, reducing America’s dependency on Mideast oil, and Iran (saving the more positive for last). If you think your site or another would be a good place for this content please do not hesitate to reach out to me! Please feel free to share and repost on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter (you can follow me there at@bfry1981)

By Brian E. Frydenborg (LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter @bfry1981) May 11th 2015

Photo by author

EILAT and AMMAN — Before the last few days, whenever I heard the word Jenin, only images of utter devastation filled my head and saddened my heart.  Like most Americans who had heard of Jenin (and most have not), a panorama of devastation would flash into my consciousness.  That was what made the West Bank town of Jenin noticeable to Americans like me who follow international affairs.  Death, destruction, occupation, terrorism… this is what Jenin was to us.  It was not so much an actual place with actual people as it was a symbol of the violent horrors of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  People like me had heard little else of Jenin after and nothing before those terrible, tragic days of the battle there in 2002.  It was as if Jenin only existed to remind us of suffering, and nothing more.

At thirty-three years of age, I find myself increasingly losing hope on a number of fronts, clinging to it because I am fearful of what it would mean to lose hope.

That is why, after this weekend, I must thank the people of Jenin and particularly the people who are part of an institution known as the Arab American University of Jenin (AAUJ) because I found hope where I had expectations of not finding it, which is not something I find myself able to say too often these days.

Photo by author

I have been to mainly-Arab East Jerusalem, some of the Arab areas of Israel, as well as to Palestine’s West Bank.  I have lived in Amman, Jordan, for over a year now.  I find that there is a great degree of similarity in these Arab cities and villages in terms of feel and architecture, so that my inexpert eye would not be able to tell you if a picture of an Arab village or city was of a Jordanian, Palestinian, or Israeli-Palestinian village.  So when I was invited to present some of my research at AAUJ for a conference on conflict transformation and peacebuilding, I had expectations of staying in a modest hotel in the middle of a city and of the campus of the University being in the same environment.

What I saw took my breath away.  Firstly, our hotel was on the other side of a forest on the outskirts of Jenin.  The approach to the hotel is quite beautiful, and there is an amusement park nearby.  The hotel itself was incredibly beautiful and of a very unique design, at least four and possibly five-star in quality.  It felt like being in a country estate, which is certainly not what I was expecting.

When I finally got to see the campus, though, my expectations were exceeded.  The campus is on a large hill overlooking what can only be described as a beautiful panorama of the rolling hills of Palestine.  The campus was very neatly laid out, very clean, well designed with bright white buildings, lots of trees and green shrubbery, pleasant courtyards.  It was all very sophisticated and with up-to-date technology, and appearing nicer and more modern than some college campuses I have seen in America.

It seemed as if most of the young women were not wearing headscarves (granted there were lots of stylish jeans but no skirts without leggings), and I did not see any of the young men styling any kind of Salafist beards or traditional religious garb.  These students seemed liberal, progressive, and not at all fundamentalist fanatics.  I saw a lot of people who looked pretty trendy actually, smiling, buzzing with conversation.  In short, the AAUJ student body reminded me very much of a typical American student body in its appearance.  The few students with whom I did speak seemed very bright, seemed to speak very good, maybe even fluent, English, and were eager to engage in conversation.  In short, I saw a rising generation in whom both Palestinians and even Israelis should have confidence.

Apparently, AAUJ has the only master’s program in conflict resolution or the like in the entire Arab world.  Perhaps there is some sort of poetic justice that it is in, of all places, Palestine.  The conference sponsored by that master’s program turned out quite well, with interesting, well prepared presentations and a conference room that for much of the time was mostly full, the students eager to take it all in.  Most of presentations were interesting and well-crafted.  I was truly inspired to hear one of the more local presenters call out his countrymen, saying that what they as Palestinians were doing was not working.  He called for Palestinians to seek out Israeli liberals of conscience who are aware of their own country’s mistreatment of Palestinians, and to work together with them so that they to empower each other because that is how progress towards peace and justice could be made.  He called on Palestinians to study Israeli and Jewish history and society, culture, and religion, and to make a serious effort to understand and respect the Israeli perspective and to understand that Israelis, too, have suffered even if not in the same way as Palestinians.  The conference ended with the master’s program head echoing this and passionately calling for more critical thinkers and philosophers to challenge the existing models of discourse and action that have failed the Palestinian cause so spectacularly, and for such students to help build a future for Palestine.

Other foreign speakers, including myself, echoed such sentiments, but it was far more important that several Palestinian speakers made these points.  I was deeply inspired by one freshman who approached me after and said that he was really inspired by one of my comments during a panel about Palestinians needing to know how important it is to frame their desires in a way that can be acceptable to Israelis rather than cause then to stop listening and turn away.  He passionately explained to me that he wanted to live with Israelis as neighbors and to share the land in peace.  He told me most of his friends disagreed and continued to dream of reclaiming all of historic Palestine, that this made him feel sad an alone, but that he really appreciated what I had to say.  For years, I had been inspired by other speakers at other academic conferences as a student and an audience member.  That I had somehow managed to inspire him as I had been inspired in the past was itself inspiring for me, and I knew without a doubt that it was the right decision to attend AAUJ’s conference.

Photo by author

After the conference, a small group of us were taken on the tour of the refugee camp in Jenin, the heart of the fighting and destruction in 2002 during the Second Intifada.  Posters of people the locals refer to as martyrs, slogans of resistance, scenes of previous death and devastation were what greeted us.  It was heartbreaking.  The young woman showing us around lived near the camp at the time and was ten years old when the battle occurred.  A missile or a rocket hit the building next to her home, and she was wounded in the leg.  For a ten year old girl, his must have been traumatizing beyond belief.  It took her months to recover.  Now, she is in her mid-twenties and a student in AAUJ’s conflict resolution program.  She ended our tour with a view from the hills above the camp, Jenin and its environs breathtaking in their beauty.

Photo by author

From the rubble of Jenin in 2002, we can see hope springing in 2015.  The hope lives in people like the two students I mentioned, the wonderful growth of AAUJ, and in the passion of AAUJ’s conflict resolution program head.  More than anything else I have seen in my two trips to Palestine, he and his students give reason for there to be hope for Palestine’s future.

If you think your site or another would be a good place for this content please do not hesitate to reach out to me! Please feel free to share and repost on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter (you can follow me there at@bfry1981) 

Originally Published on LinkedIn Pulse January 7th, 2015

By Brian E. Frydenborg- LinkedIn,Facebook, and Twitter (you can follow me there at @bfry1981) January 7th, 2015

This article was republished by the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC), Stupidparty Math v. Myth, and Ammon News.

It is times like these when we are reminded how thin our veneer of civilization truly is, how frail the social fabric that binds us together is, how easily it can all come undone. We did not see this after 9/11 in New York: New Yorkers united to help each other, did not panic. But we did see this after Hurricane Katrina and gross incompetence from everyone from Mayor Ray Nagin to President George W. Bush devastated New Orleans.

It was not some sort of freak coincidence that people both in America and the Middle East, as well as elsewhere, looked at images coming out of Ferguson and images coming out of Egypt, the Palestinian Territories of Gaza and the West Bank, and other places in the region and saw significant similarities. The images of mass protests turning violent and/or security forces’ violent responses, often involving tear gas, were, at times, difficult to tell if they were taken in Ferguson or Ramallah or Cairo. Some in the Middle East, far more accustomed to dealing with tear gas than Americans, posted advice for their fellow protesters in America. There was a genuine solidarity felt between protesters in both regions. For many, especially white Americans and Jewish Israelis, this might seem incomprehensible. What could African-Americans and Palestinians have in common with each other?

There was a genuine solidarity felt between protesters in both regions.

Well, despite all the differences, quite a lot actually. America in particular can very much look at the situation in Israel/Palestine as a cautionary tale.

And the sad reality of all of this is that this whole incident of young Michael Brown being killed by Officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri, and its aftermath is but one single brick in a Berlin Wall of America’s racial divide, separating not East and West Berlin, but most American whites from most American blacks and many other people of color.

Or, if you will, a brick in the Israeli Separation Barrier of America’s racial divide might be a more apt metaphor. The Berlin Wall separated white Berliners from other White Berliners. But, like America’s invisible wall, Israel’s physical wall is based on race/ethnicity, separating Arab Palestinians from Israeli Jews. I will not claim here that slave-descent African Americans in America are the equivalent of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. But there are important similarities between the recent violence in Ferguson and current violence in Jerusalem, between historical unrest in America among blacks and historical unrest among Palestinians under Israeli control, that are worth exploring.

Black in America: A Brief History

Unless you are a more recent voluntary immigrant from Africa or the Caribbean (and they generally were not allowed until relatively recently but have, as groups, been more successful than slave-descent African-Americans), if you have black skin your ancestors were almost certainly brought over here in chains as slaves, bartered for and sold as human chattel, bred like animals, and tortured, sexually abused, and raped at will by their masters for generations. Through colonial and pre-Civil War American history, there are sporadic slave rebellions, but most of these are relatively minor affairs compared with events in Haiti and ancient Rome; there was no American Toussaint L’Ouverture or Spartacus.

Unless you are a more recent voluntary immigrant from Africa or the Caribbean, if you have black skin your ancestors were almost certainly brought over here in chains as slaves, bartered for and sold as human chattel, bred like animals, and tortured, sexually abused, and raped at will by their masters for generations.

Then, the election in November of 1860 of Abraham Lincoln as president by the American people to limit the spread of slavery into the West was met by preemptive declarations of secession, the seizing of federal property by Southern militias, and then the attack on Ft. Sumter in Charleston, SC. In the ensuing war caused by the disagreements over the institution of slavery, Lincoln even at his inauguration gave Southerners and Southern states an open invitation to rejoin the Union peaceably and cease rebellion (including in the Emancipation Proclamation) while preserving slavery, and later offered compensation repeatedly for their slaves in an effort towards gradual emancipation even as the American soldiers, government, and people—not least of all President Lincoln—increasingly moved towards abolition and emancipation throughout the war; the South refused the offers every time. In Reconstruction governments set up in the Southern states starting in 1863 and lasting until 1877, former slaves that were liberated throughout the course of the war and eventually by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution in 1865, passed just months before the assassination of Lincoln, began to assert their freedom and participate fully in government; they were elected as U.S. Senators, U.S. Congressmen, state senators and representatives, and included a governor.  The Constitution was further amended two more times in 1868 and 1870 to extend citizenship to slaves, give them and all American citizens equal rights and protections under the law, to give black men the right to vote, and to empower Congress to be able to enforce these changes.

Many Southern whites bitterly opposed these changes. In particular, they felt that freed slaves, who had nothing and very little education, should get no assistance from the federal government, and sought to undermine the Freedmen’s Bureau, which was supported by the federal troops in the region and something of a precursor to a modern welfare and/or development agency. The arguments of this era quickly evolved to say the freed blacks were lazy and undeserving of any assistance, that being free meant they should stand on their own, and that the Freedmen’s Bureau and the new postwar order amounted to taking money from the hard-working white man and giving it to lazy blacks so that the Republican-dominated government could corruptly buy votes among the freed slaves. From 1865 forward, much of this has formed the core of conservative Americans’ arguments against things like welfare and affirmative action. With the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) in the vanguard, the new order, severely undermined by Lincoln’s post-assassination replacement, Andrew Johnson, was overthrown by a white supremacist terrorist and guerrilla insurgency in every Reconstruction Southern state by the end of 1877. Violence overcame order and Black Codes were established, ushering in the Jim Crow era in the South, an era of legal tyranny, terror, violence, deprivation, and discrimination, of the lynching of thousands of blacks and their allies, and of mass incarceration and virtual slave labor, of blacks being denied the right to vote, and of blacks being kept on the bottom rung of society and denied advancement as a group while much of the rest of America had opportunities to experience social mobility and passed on wealth from generation to generation.  This was an era that would not formally end until the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, after years of tumult and the need to deploy federalized troops, again, to prevent Southern whites from continuing their reign of terror over blacks.

This era gave way to the Vietnam era, which combined with the Civil Rights Movement, would see many violent riots, the assassination of JFK, MLK, and Bobby Kennedy, and a severe strain on the American social fabric. Even today, there is still a lot of discrimination even if legal segregation and regular KKK attacks are a thing of the past. That we currently have a man with black skin in the White House, whose mother raised him alone and was white, and whose father was Kenyan, is not a reflection of any kind of change or progress for slave-descent African-Americans. In fact, in almost every conceivable way black Americans have a far inferior existence in America compared to whites, so that, if separated, their socio-economic statistics would be like that of a fragile “Third-World” state by the standards of the Fund for Peace. And the links to the past are undeniable: in American counties where slavery existed in higher proportions, today there is greater inequality, so there is an exceedingly good case that not only has a vast, centuries-long injustice been perpetrated upon these people, but that they are entitled to compensation for the crimes a whole nation has inflicted upon them.

In fact, in almost every conceivable way black Americans have a far inferior existence in America compared to whites, so that, if separated, their socio-economic statistics would be like that of a fragile, “third-world” state by the standards of the Fund for Peace. And the links to the past are undeniable: in American counties where slavery existed in higher proportions, today there is greater inequality, so there is an exceedingly good case that not only has a vast, centuries-long injustice been perpetrated upon these people, but that they are entitled to compensation for the crimes a whole nation has inflicted upon them.

Palestinian in Palestine and Israel: A Brief History

If we look at the conflict with Israel and Palestinians in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, it is both vastly different and one which is hauntingly familiar. While the enslavement of blacks by Americans goes back to the early seventeenth century, the conflict between Arabs and Jews in what is today known as Israel and Palestine (West Bank and the Gaza Strip) only dates to the late nineteenth century, when mainly European Zionist Jews began settling the area, then under the control of the Ottoman Empire.

At the beginning of WWI, before the British Empire conquered Palestine from the Ottoman Turks, even after several waves of Jewish immigration there were roughly only 60,000 Jews to 81,000 Christians, 650,000 Muslims, and 7,000 Druze; Jews were only about 7.5% of the population of Ottoman Palestine.

At the beginning of WWI, before the British Empire conquered Palestine from the Ottoman Turks, even after several waves of Jewish immigration there were roughly only 60,000 Jews to 81,000 Christians, 650,000 Muslims, and 7,000 Druze; Jews were only about 7.5% of the population of Ottoman Palestine, though tens of thousands of Arabs and some Jews left or were forced out during the war, shifting the balance of Jews to almost 7.9% in 1918. True, a significant number of these were of the community of Jews who had survived the Roman wars and expulsions of the first and second-centuries C.E., but they were always a small minority from not long after that period forward. Yet in the years from the end of WWI until 1948, though, the British, committed to providing a “national home” for the “Jewish people” in Palestine with the Balfour Declaration and through a general policy of allowing large-scale immigration of Jews into Palestine, ended up shifting this balance during the course of their Mandate so that by the time major fighting broke out late in 1947 in the civil war between Jews and Arabs and in the later 1948-1949 war that a brand new Israel fought against its Arab neighbors, there were 650,000 Jews to 1.2 to 1.3 million Palestinian Arabs; under the British, the Jewish population had easily more than quadrupled its proportion and grown more than eleven times in absolute terms.

The majority Palestinians had never consented to Jewish immigration, let alone allowing a sovereign Jewish state to be created by British Europeans and mainly European Jews on land in which they had been the majority population for many centuries, though as a community, they and their neighboring non-Palestinian Arab brethren never came close to the cohesion, organization, efficiency, and planning of the Zionists, nor did they in general in any subsequent war, conflict, or intifada, up through and including the latest lopsided encounter in Gaza in the summer of 2014. Their leadership decimated by a failed revolt against British rule in Palestine in the 1930s, the Palestinian Arabs were a mess when the British, exhausted emotionally and materially from WWII and facing Jewish terrorism in Palestine, announced their decision to leave and transfer responsibility to the fledgling United Nations. In the ensuing conflict, Israel established a state, but some 700,000 Arabs fled because of direct expulsion at the hands of Jewish forces, direct or indirect pressure from Jews, voluntarily, or with encouragement from fellow Arabs. Roughly one-third fled outside what is now known as Israel, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank, but the rest ended up as refugees in the latter two, joining the Palestinians who were already living there.

Then, Israel took both Gaza and the West Bank over in the 1967 Six-Day War, and from 1967 until today, Israel has maintained military rule of the West Bank, and as of now we are approaching 400,000 Jewish colonists, or settlers, living in settlements established after 1967 in the West Bank, excluding East Jerusalem, which was also occupied in 1967 and which Israel completely controls today. The nearly 400,000 settler-community, whose population has dramatically increased in recent decades, live among at least 2.5 million Palestinians. Despite previous agreements, all Palestinians living in the West Bank are totally subject to the authority of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF, or Israeli military), though when Israel permits some Palestinian parts of the West Bank are subject to varying degrees of partial local control. Israel’s policies also greatly weaken the Palestinian economy. From 1967 until 2005 Israel also ruled Gaza through its military and and occupation that also saw Jewish colonization until Israel unilaterally withdrew in 2005. Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist resistance and terrorist movement, took over in 2006, and since then, Israel has maintained a debilitating siege/blockade of and de facto control over Gaza, especially in terms of sovereign matters (air space, coastal waters, land borders/crossings, the Palestinian population registry, taxation, most utilities, travel rights, etc.) as I have written before.

In the end, West Bank Palestinians (and Gazans until 2005) have been subject to a brutal military occupation since 1967 denying their basic rights and freedoms and, since the settler movement grew, subjecting them to a system—not wholly dissimilar from apartheid and Jim Crow if not exactly the same—that explicitly favors the Jewish settlers over them and subjects them to different standards, restriction, and laws, and also mostly fails to stop or prosecute violent crimes committed by those the system favors (Jews) against those the system does not (Palestinians).

In the end, West Bank Palestinians (and Gazans until 2005) have been subject to a brutal military occupation since 1967 denying their basic rights and freedoms and, since the settler movement emerged and grew, subjecting them to a system—not wholly dissimilar from apartheid and Jim Crow if not exactly the same—that explicitly favors the Jewish settlers over them and subjects them to different standards, restriction, and laws.  This system also mostly fails to stop or prosecute violent crimes committed by those the system favors (Jews) against those the system does not (Palestinians). And even Palestinian-Israelis (also called Israeli-Arabs) with Israeli citizenship and living in Israel are subject to systematic and routine discrimination even though they are not living under a military occupation or siege.

Defusing Structural Violence Is the Key to Defusing Physical Violence

So Palestinians were not brought over in chains like African-Americans and have not been subject to slavery. But on a day-to-day basis, Palestinians do occupy the bottom rung in the social and political system set up by the Israeli state, working low-skilled and labor-intensive jobs, facing all sorts of discrimination (including housing), brutality from security forces, neglect in resource allocation, and general racism in ways a black American would find very familiar or at least somewhat similar. The structures oppressing Palestinians under Israeli control are massive and overwhelming, and, experiencing little or no progress or even regression, Palestinians have resorted to violence to make themselves heard, to feel empowered, to let the building and boiling rage loose on a society and a world that at best plays lip service to their plight. How is this any different than what happened in Ferguson? How can any aware, caring, empathetic person not see the disturbances and realize that it is in part the primal, rage-filled scream of a people who have been shackled, trampled-upon, cast aside, and ignored? Surrounded by a majority culture that stigmatizes and fears them, teases them by surrounding their ghettos and enclaves with an overwhelmingly higher standard of living and lifestyle that mocks them with a sight of the opportunities and privileges they might have known, forces them to choke on generations of deprivation and inequality, and treats them in an inferior way in almost every possible way, so that even young black kids unconsciously negatively associate the “bad” with black skin and the “good” with white skin, would not any people explode with such rage after decades of regression and being ignored, and would not some of this rage inevitably devolve into violence?

Surrounded by a majority culture that stigmatizes and fears them, teases them by surrounding their ghettos and enclaves with and overwhelmingly higher standard of living and lifestyle that mocks them with a sight of the opportunities and privileges they might have known, forces them to choke on generations of deprivation and inequality, and treats them in an inferior way in almost every possible way, would not any people explode with such rage after decades of regression and being ignored, and would not some of this rage inevitably devolve into violence?

Sure, some can argue that that was a lot of media attention and people projecting symbolism onto a specific event. But people projected onto the Dred Scott decision, on John Brown’s violent raid, on the Rosa Parks bus incident, on Rodney King’s incident. Many white Americans projected their concerns onto Officer Darren Wilson’s situation just as many blacks projected their grievances onto Michael Brown’s death. Tunisians projected theirs onto a single fruit vendor self-immolating; Israelis projected when three Israeli teens—Naftali Fraenkel, Gilad Shaar, and Eyal Yifrach—were kidnapped and murdered in cold blood and Palestinians projected when Muhammad Abu Khdeir was burned alive and murdered in turn. In fact, on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict it is very common for funerals to turn into political rallies or protests, with Israelis and Palestinians projecting vociferously against each other and using the funerals as a platform to do so. This is human nature and common in any conflict. Regardless of whether or not the media chose to focus on the events in Ferguson, the grievances, emotions, and rage are all very real, just as the brutality of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank would be there whether or not it was in the media spotlight. Israelis will project their insecurity of living in a relatively new state with neighbors that have not signed a peace treaty with them and with terrorist groups that say they want to destroy them, and Palestinians will project their rage at a decades-old occupation, serial abuse, and continuous theft of their land carried out by the Israeli government. And black Americans will project their frustrations on a society that has never treated them justly and ignores them as their conditions worsen. Furthermore, it is particularly hypocritical, as I noted in one of my recent podcasts, that so many white, conservative Americans hold the belief that weapons in the hands of the individual citizen, a bearing of arms which they erroneously believe is an individual and unrestricted right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, provide an appropriate threat of violence that is a perfectly fine check on the federal government’s authority but at the same time are so strongly disapproving of and unsympathetic to the protests and violence of a frustrated black community, frustrated by what they see as regular abuse of government authority in the wake of incidents like those in Ferguson and when Eric Garner was accidentally choked to death in Staten Island by a police officer in the process of being arrested for merely selling cigarettes illegally, among many other similar incidents.

And let’s be clear: both black Americans and Palestinians are in conflict with state systems that do not hear their causes, do not address their conditions or concerns, and do not generally represent them. When a Palestinian looks at Israeli security personnel, they do not see public servants there to protect them, but instead see a tool of oppression, and it is the same with many black Americans looking at their local police. And, historically, in both conflicts the security forces were used very directly by the state as tools of oppression against both peoples; they still are today, and one only has to check the news to confirm this.

Let’s be clear: both black Americans and Palestinians are in conflict with state systems that do not hear their causes, do not address their conditions or concerns, and do not generally represent them.

Conclusion: Wake Up!

We cannot endorse rioting in American streets or killing Israeli Jews in their synagogues, attacks targeting American police officers or Israeli civilians(anyone who wants to can see my harsh condemnation of Hamas right here or hear my denunciation of recent attacks against police here). But neither can we endorse a state and society-perpetuated assault on black Americans, their opportunities, and their chance at equal justice, an assault that that has mostly strengthened their unequal status in all facets of American life. Nor can we endorse an Israeli occupation that ignores the basic human rights of Palestinians, steals their land, and whose existence is based solely on brute force without any acceptance by those it occupies.

Americans and Israelis should be concerned about the physical violence they have seen; if they want to address it in the long run, they must end their structural violence of racism and/or occupation. Because to not do so is to simply encourage violence on the part of peoples whose respective systems leave little alternative. The violence is not the problem, it is a symptom, for people do not generally resort to violence when the system they live under is responsive to their needs. America’s system is not responsive to black Americans and has not been for centuries, and Israel’s system is not responsive to Palestinians and has not been for decades, and this is the true problem both societies face. Of course, righting these wrongs will not totally eliminate violent behavior on the part of black Americans or Palestinians, but it would make such behavior incredibly rare. And if we white Americans do not work towards ending this structural violence? If white Americans continue to fail to understand the legitimate grievances of the black community and do nothing out of ignorance or worse? We can expect more Ferguson Intifadas, and to find more protest photos and videos in which it is not easy to tell the difference between America and the Middle East.

The violence is not the problem, it is a symptom, for people do not generally resort to violence when the system they live under is responsive to their needs. America’s system is not responsive to black Americans and has not been for centuries, and Israel’s system is not responsive to Palestinians and has not been for decades, and this is the true problem both societies face.

Related article: America Staring into Abyss of Racial Terrorism After Shootings; Up to White America if USA Falls in, Sees Israeli-Palestinization of Race Relations

If you want to learn more about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, feel free to look at my piece on this summer’s Israel/Hamas Gaza conflict and its context beginning right here.