I would be a poor columnist if I continued with my monk-like silence on the war in Gaza. It is a major issue, and I should have something to say about it. I do. I had my first discussion (or argument) about Israel with my primary school teacher when I was eight, in 1948, the year of Israel’s creation (I must have been a precocious brat!). I celebrated its independence then and I have been a long-term supporter of Israel ever since, with a few inevitable ups and downs. I remain so. But so far, I have let the war in Gaza go by without comment because I predicted that the arguments for and against Israel would evolve and that eventually the protagonists’ real core beliefs would come to the surface. That would be the time for comment. And so it has come to pass.
Supporting Israel is not a smorgasbord where you can pick and choose the bits you like and reject the bits you don’t. So, I support Israel and urge it not to compromise, despite the condemnation being hurled at it, but to keep at it until Hamas, its existential enemy, is destroyed. That is called war, and it means killing people. It also means there will inevitably be civilian casualties on both sides.
I support Israel because it is a democracy that was invaded and is entitled to defend itself by repelling the invaders and keeping them repelled. Israel is also obliged to defend its own citizens and, if they are taken hostage, to find them and force their release. That also involves killing people and the heavy burden of saving the lives of the hostages. So, the imperative must be to destroy Hamas, the only way that Israel can survive.
But a lot of the so-called supporters of Israel, both within and outside the country, have given in to emotional arguments that are destructive of Israel’s prospect of victory in Gaza and put at risk its very survival.
First, they say, Israel’s response should be proportionate and that it should not kill too many Hamas terrorists, including in Rafah, the next front. Israel should reject any such restriction on its military response as it is tantamount to asserting that it should simply give up. Israel is now well on the way to cleansing Gaza of the Hamas scourge forever. It should keep at it and finish the job. In any event, Hamas’ invasion and its slaughter of the innocents was not proportionate. It did not say, ‘Don’t kill too many Jews. Absolute tops, 1200.’ It declared total war on Israel and deserves a total response with no proportionate limitations. In fact, the only event that would negate my support for Israel would be if it accepted this argument of proportionality.
Secondly, the critics say it is time for a ceasefire. They endlessly dress it up, like Penny Wong when she puts on her serious look, and call it a temporary or humanitarian pause in hostilities. But it all means the same thing: give Hamas time to rearm and regroup and wreak more terror.
Thirdly, they say, Israel should announce that its policy is to seek a two-state solution, one for Jews and one for Palestinians. This is complete nonsense and divorced from reality. The Arab states do not want a Palestinian state next door, no doubt with Iran permanently stirring it up and arming it with missiles. Hamas and the Palestinian Authority do not want it either, as the present situation gives them a permanent issue to generate sympathy, promote hatred of Israel and keep the UN money flowing. And to be frank; the two-state solution is being pushed by the US solely because Biden knows that if he does not throw a bone or two to Muslims and their sympathisers, they will not vote for him or not vote at all in the swing states and he will lose the coming election. Those who advocate a two-state solution also forget that they had one in 1948 after partition by the UN and the result was that Israel was invaded by all its Arab neighbours. That is exactly what would happen again.
Fourthly, the critics of the war say it is a political ruse by Netanyahu to keep himself in power. They should realise that every Islamic extremist, every bleeding heart in the ABC, every lovey-dovey letter writer to the Age and their camp followers, all seize on these utterances to weaken support for the war. They say, ‘Some geezer who used to work for Mossad has said that Israel is engaged in genocide to save Netanyahu’s skin.’ But the immediate issue remains the existential threat to Israel. Israel should do war now and politics later.
The same can be said of the campaign to bring the hostages home, no matter what deal has to be made. Israelis are suffering immeasurable grief at their loved ones being held in captivity. But those who say that a compromise should be made to free the hostages are diverting attention from the main objective, to repel the invaders and make sure they remain repelled. It is painful, but the risk of being killed by Arab terrorists or taken as a hostage is part of the price of living in Israel and its citizens have long accepted that appalling burden. Only the permanent defeat of Hamas will prevent future generations from being subjected to the same risks. The loss of hostages’ lives would be horrific; but the loss of Israel itself would be worse.
Then, the critics say that Israel should accept the current Hamas offer of a ceasefire because it will end the suffering and the hostages will be released, provided that Israel withdraws its troops from Gaza.
In other words, the proposal is again: ‘Stop fighting and just surrender’. Israel should reject this offer and any form of ‘give up’ proposal.
There, I have stated my opinions and I do not resile from them. Because that is the true role of the columnist.
